Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday, 8th May.

LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY CORPORATION BILL

Mr. Corfield and Mr. Harry Randall discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. Boardman and Mr. David James added.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Lipton: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will insist, as a condition of Britain's entry into the Common Market, that Commonwealth products shall continue to enjoy their present freedom of access to this country or, alternatively, shall be offered other outlets by lowering Common Market tariffs or other means acceptable to the Commonwealth countries concerned.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement of 10th October in which I suggested how the problem of Commonwealth products might be split up into its different components and how each of these might be treated if the vital interests of the Commonwealth were to be safeguarded. In reply to a Question on 7th March, I explained what progress we had made in dealing with the various groups of Commonwealth problems.

Mr. Lipton: That was a long time ago. In view of the fears still being voiced, with good reason, by the Deputy-Prime Minister of Australia in London as recently as last night, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any attempt to bulldoze, hoodwink or prejudice Canada, Australia or any other Commonwealth country will be regarded as a gross betrayal and will drag the Government's reputation down to an even lower level than it has already reached?

Mr. Heath: There is no question of the Commonwealth being treated in the way that the hon. Member has just read out. We have given the fullest assurances to the Commonwealth and to Parliament to which we will adhere. The Deputy-Prime Minister of Australia was pointing out certain consequences that would follow if no special arrangements of the kind which I have described were arrived at. That, of course, is a different situation.

Mr. Healey: Can the Lord Privy Seal assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not accept an arrangement which is of a purely temporary and transitional nature and will insist on comparable outlets being assured for an indefinite period?

Mr. Heath: I have repeatedly assured the House that in these negotiations we are dealing not only with the short or transitional period of the Community, but also with the long-term and Common Market period.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware of the damage being done to the export trade as a result of delay arising from discussion on the Common Market application by the United Kingdom; and when he expects to report to Parliament, with a view to facilitating exports.

Mr. Heath: I am not aware that our export trade is being damaged in this way, though I realise that the outcome of the Brussels negotiations will affect the plans of all those in the United Kingdom concerned with exports. That is why I am anxious to press on with the negotiations as quickly as possible. I cannot yet say when their outcome will be sufficiently clear to enable me to report to Parliament.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Lord Privy Seal not aware that one of the largest exporting firms in Scotland has had its orders cancelled by a firm in one of the Common Market countries on the ground that entry will obviously affect prices? Does he not realise that the quicker the Government make up their mind and let the House and industry know what the position is the better it will be for Scottish exporters in general?

Mr. Heath: I was not aware of the particular case the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If it affected prices it could only, of course, be to bring prices down because of the lowering of tariff barriers. I hope all firms in this country will continue to use all their efforts in the export trade to Commonwealth countries, to the countries of E.F.T.A. and to third countries of the world, quite apart from any plans which they can make for exports to the European Community.

Mr. Bowles: Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us—and take a little longer perhaps than usual—what is the real, overwhelming reason for the desire of the Government to join this Community at all?

Mr. Heath: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read my statement of 10th October.

Sir H. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that our export trade depends on our goods being at the right price and of the right quality irrespective of whether we enter the Common Market or not?

Mr. Walker: asked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the recent official statement of Dr. Mansholt, a vice-president of the European Commission, on this matter, if he will give an assurance that he will not recommend the entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market upon a basis whereby the major safeguards for Commonwealth interests are limited to a period of five years.

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government fully adheres to the assurances already given to Parliament and to the Commonwealth countries. I have therefore nothing to add to the reply I gave to a Question from my hon. Friend on 19th March.

Mr. Walker: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is disturbing

to find that Professor Hallstein, Dr. Mansholt and the French Foreign Secretary have all gone on record as saying that permanent safeguards cannot be provided for the Commonwealth? Will my right hon. Friend take note of the words of the Minister of Trade for Australia last night when he said that the Commonwealth would not be satisfied with the tranquillisers of some temporary safeguards?

Mr. Heath: I am fully aware of what my hon. Friend has said. I repeat what I said earlier—it is that in this matter we are negotiating both on short-term and long-term. Dr. Mansholt, when he spoke in London, was giving his personal views about certain aspects of agricultural policy. We are concerned with the Commonwealth interest over the whole field.

Mr. Mayhew: Does not the recent speech of the Leader of the House, stating that Britain's entry into the Common Market would be the main issue at a General Election, provide a clear indication that the Government have decided to enter the Common Market on any terms? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is it fair to the Lord Privy Seal that speeches of this kind should be made when he is negotiating with the Six?

Mr. Heath: The speech by my right hon. Friend to which the hon. Member refers implies nothing of the kind. It is quite conceivable that there could be a General Election even if we were not able to negotiate arrangements to go into the Common Market.

Mr. Holt: While there would bound to be changes in the pattern of Commonwealth trade with this country as a result of our going into the Common Market, may I ask whether the objects of the negotiations should not be to ensure that the Commonwealth has as great, or possibly a greater, opportunity of trade with Europe as a whole, including Great Britain, as it now has?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. The pattern of Commonwealth trade is changing all the time, quite regardless of the negotiations we undertake or whether or not we enter the European Economic Community. That is bound to happen with lively economies and developing countries. Naturally, we should like to see


the Commonwealth have greater opportunities in the European countries. If the proposals which I have put forward are acceptable, they will definitely widen the opportunities of Commonwealth countries in Europe.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is yet in a position to place in the Library copies of the final text in French of the agreement reached by the European Economic Community on agricultural policy, together with an English translation of the text.

Mr. Heath: The final texts of the fourteen agriculture documents were approved by the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community on 4th April. They will be published in the OFFICIAL JOURNAL of the Communities in due course. Meanwhile, advance copies of the French texts are being made available to us as quickly as the work of reproduction and checking permits. The texts of nine documents have ben received so far (together with two supplementary documents) and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. We expect to place the other five texts in the Library today. An English translation will be placed in the Vote Office as soon as possible.

Mrs. Castle: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask if the words "as soon as possible" in the English translation will not be extended to mean a matter of weeks but will mean merely a matter of days?

Mr. Heath: I could not give an undertaking that it will be only a matter of days, but it will be very soon, and as each document is completed in turn we will make it available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Lord Privy Seal what examination has been made by his Department of the probable effects of Britain's entry into the Common Market on the film industry; and if he will publish the conclusions reached.

Mr. Heath: The European Economic Community has not yet adopted a common films policy. It is therefore not possible to judge at this stage what effect, if any, our entry into the Community would have on the British film industry.

Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fact-finding commission set up by the E.E.C. last year on the film industry has now reported to the Governments of the Six and that it has been published that the Governments of the Six have been asked within the next month to make their proposals about a common films policy of the E.E.C.? Would he, therefore, ask whether the Government may have a copy of this fact-finding report on which the policy will be based so that they may be able to put forward proposals in the negotiations?

Mr. Heath: If this matter reaches a stage of proposals being formulated during the negotiations, I hope that we shall follow the customary practice in these negotiations so far, which is to obtain copies of the documents concerned and to express our views upon them.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will add to the delegation in Brussels which is negotiating about Britain's entry into the Common Market representatives of British film producers who are competent to advise on the measures necessary to safeguard the interests of the industry and to foster its growth.

Mr. Heath: No, Sir. It would not be practicable to attach to the delegation representatives of all the many industries whose products are being or will be discussed.

Mr. Swingler: In the light of the Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to the previous Question, may we take it that the Government will now make representations to ensure that when the documents are brought out they are provided to them in order that the experts in the film industry in this country may have an opportunity in the next few weeks of being able to formulate some proposals to put forward?

Mr. Heath: On the delegation at Brussels we have a representative of the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade is in close contact with the British film industry over this matter. As for proposals, as I have said, we shall follow the normal procedure in these negotiations.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the minimum requirement


Her Majesty's Government are seeking in the negotiations with members of the European Economic Community in respect of preferential treatment for the entry of primary products from New Zealand, Australia and Canada, respectively, into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Heath: No negotiator can be expected to announce in public his minimum terms for agreement on any particular subject.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not there some indication that the right bon. Gentleman has not made up his mind about the minimum requirements? If he does not know how he stands in this regard, how can he negotiate successfully? May I have an assurance from him that he will allow neither himself nor his colleagues in the Government to be manœuvred by any of the members of the Six into a compromise which operates to the detriment of this country and of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Heath: In his time the right hon. Gentleman has carried out a good many negotiations. I cannot believe that he ever announced in public what his minimum terms would be. Answering the latter part of his question, we have every confidence that we shall not be outmanœuvred in the negotiations.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that when I entered into negotiations on behalf of any British Government with which I was associated, I was not prepared to compromise if the compromise meant any detriment to or deterioration of the prestige and power of this country?

Mr. Heath: Every negotiation consists of a compromise of some degree or another, otherwise it would not be negotiation, it would be a series of ultimata. What we have to do is to look at the balance which we achieve on the whole solution.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent it is a condition of Great Britain's entry into the Common Market that British foreign and defence policy, including North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commitments, shall be co-ordinated with that of the Six.

Mr. Heath: I put forward Her Majesty's Government's views on these

matters in the statement I made to the Western European Union on 10th April, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Zilliacus: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if we were to go into the Common Market the Government would be as free as they are today to pursue a foreign policy for a European settlement—for instance, through disengagement on the lines advocated by the Opposition—in spite of the known objections of their partners in the Common Market to any such policy?

Mr. Heath: The Treaty of Rome has no effect on foreign policy. At the same time, the members of the three Communities have been discussing together what political arrangements should be set up alongside the Communities. I was dealing with that matter in my speech of 10th April. But the effect on foreign policy depends on the nature of the proposals reached by the Six.

Mr. Mayhew: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when his speech became available in the Vote Office, and when it leaked into The Times?

Mr. Heath: I understand that it was available in the Vote Office on Friday of last week.

Mr. Chataway: Does my right hon. hon. Friend agree that, despite the failure of the talks in Paris, there is a need for closer political association between the countries of Western Europe, and that if we succeed in negotiating our way into the Common Market we should be keen to arrive at such a closer political association?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. I fully expressed this view in the speech I made to Western European Union. This is a matter for the members of the Six, whose Governments are taking part in these talks.

Later—

Mr. Heath: May I say, in answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) a few moments ago, that the text of my speech to Western European Union was released on Friday, but as the House had risen it was not available in the Vote Office until Monday?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE (COLONIAL MATTERS)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will instruct the United Kingdom delegates on the Trusteeship Committee of the United Nations to cooperate with the United Nations in its request for information about the situation in Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Healey: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on his talks with members of the United Nations Committee on the Liquidation of Colonialism.

Mr. Wall: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's discussions in London with the United Nations Sub-Committee on colonial matters.

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Lord Privy Seal the result of his recent official talks with the United Nations' Committee investigating the problems of colonialism.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): I will, with permission, answer this Question and Nos. 25, 26 and 27 together, since I take it that in each case the hon. Gentlemen intend reference to the United Nations Committee of Seventeen and its Sub-Committee which recently visited us in London.
Since my right hon. Friend's Written Reply of 11th April, the visiting Sub-Committee held a meeting with officials and one more with Ministers of the Crown, apart from informal contacts. I understand that the Sub-Committee is now preparing its report on the visit in New York. We believe that the visit has been useful in demonstrating our willingness to co-operate to the fullest reasonable extent with the United Nations in providing information on colonial matters and in bringing home the facts to the members of the Sub-Committee, particularly in regard to Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Thomson: Whilst welcoming the fact that the Government have met the members of the Sub-Committee in London, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that Britain enjoys an immense amount of good will at the United

Nations, and deservedly, because of her record in advancing political progress in Colonial Territories? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, seek to use that good will to influence the European minority in Southern Rhodesia to make the kind of changes that are necessary for a peaceful solution there?

Mr. Thomas: Our wish to co-operate with the United Nations has been made clear and has been generally appreciated by the United Nations.

Mr. Healey: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that the members of the Sub-Committee were somewhat disturbed at the refusal of Her Majesty's Ministers to make any gesture even towards meeting their views on Southern Rhodesia? Will he consult his right hon. Friends to see whether, even at this late date, Her Majesty's Government could not adopt one of the courses of action suggested to them by members of the Sub-Committee and at least give the lie to the statement by the Foreign Secretary in another place that Her Majesty's Government did not intend to be influenced in any way in their colonial policy by the views of the United Nations?

Mr. Thomas: The information which was given, both here and in New York, on the facts of the situation in Southern Rhodesia in particular was very full. While expressing the concern which some of them feel, the members of the Sub-Committee made it clear that they recognised both the strict limitations upon the powers of Her Majesty's Government in Southern Rhodesia and the fact that the United Nations should not seek to arrogate to itself the responsibilities of government there.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Has this Subcommittee paid any tribute to British colonialism for ending tribal warfare, slavery and witchcraft and for promoting law and order in so many territories?

Mr. Thomas: The Sub-Committee certainly did pay a tribute to British colonial policy.

Mr. Dudley Williams: In view of the enlightened policy which has been followed by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, does my hon. Friend think that this continual sniping by the


opposition in the United Nations can be anything but bad and the means of encouraging extremist elements, both black and white, in that territory?

Mr. Thomas: I certainly agree that one cannot take just one side without knowing the full facts about both sides.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the decision of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Seventeen of the United Nations to report on the constitutional position of Southern and Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. P. Thomas: As has been made clear both in New York and to the recent visitors here from the Committee of Seventeen, we recognise the interest of members of the United Nations in the steady progress of our overseas territories. Our sympathy with this interest cannot, however, extend to sharing or shifting our responsibilities.

Mr. Brockway: Yes, but did not the speech of the representative of the United Kingdom go rather further than that? Is it not now obsolete to try to suggest that the United Nations should not intervene in the affairs of dependent counties? Will not the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will take a more up-to-date view of this situation and adjust themselves to the new world?

Mr. Thomas: I think the best thing I can do is to quote what my noble Friend said on this point in another place:
The United Nations is entitled to information, and we have said that we will give information to the relevant committees of the United Nations. We have also made it clear, however, that we cannot accept resolutions or recommendations, because colonial policy must be a matter for H.M. Government.
Therefore, I would say that the United Nations is certainly not entitled to intervene.

Mr. Healey: Apart from the juridical position, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that having support from the United Nations for British policy, which on the whole is extremely good in Africa in this field, is of the greatest importance if we are to achieve a peaceful transfer of power in these regions? Will

he not, therefore, answer the question which I asked him earlier—whether he will seriously consider carrying out some of the proposals that were made to him during the discussions last week by Dr. Jha?

Mr. Thomas: All the conversations and discussions we have had with Dr. Jha and other members of the Sub-Committee will certainly be very carefully considered.

Mr. Goodhew: Will my hon. Friend suggest to Dr. Jha and his Sub-Committee that they might look at countries in which the people are not moving towards self-determination in any way, such as Kashmir and the countries behind the Iron Curtain, rather than territories where great strides are being made towards this end?

Mr. Thomas: I think that Dr. Jha and his Sub-Committee appreciate that the British colonial record is a good one, and, indeed, paid tribute to it.

Mr. Fernyhough: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that in taking this attitude Her Majesty's Government are guilty of double dealing? Does he not recall that when Russia cruelly suppressed the rising in Hungary, Her Majesty's Government joined with other nations in demanding that the United Nations should be given the right to go and see what happened? Does he agree that we have no right to demand that the United Nations should be given facilities of that kind in an Iron Curtain country unless we ourselves are prepared to accept the decision of the United Nations when it wants to investigate territories under British control?

Mr. Thomas: I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The very fact that we were hosts to this Sub-Committee in London and gave it the very fullest facts indicates that we are perfectly prepared to discuss these facts and give the fullest information.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN (FORMER BRITISH OFFICIALS)

Sir J. Maitland: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make further representations to the Sudan Government to increase pensions payable to former officials of the Sudan Government.

Mr. P. Thomas: I do not consider that further representations to the Sudan Government would serve any useful purpose at present.

Sir J. Maitland: Really, that is a very unsatisfactory answer. Week after week we have the same sort of answer from the Government about this matter. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that these men have served this country as well as the Sudan and that we have a very great responsibility for them?

Mr. Thomas: As my hon. Friend does know, we have already made renewed representations to the Sudanese authorities on this matter and we have recently received a negative reply. Therefore, we have no hope that any further representation will have any success. We certainly agree with my hon. Friend in what he says about the services which these pensioners have given not only to the Sudan but to Britain generally.

Sir J. Maitland: Then what are the Government going to do about it, if the Sudan Government do not do anything about it?

Mr. Thomas: As has been said in this House on many occasions, the question of pension increase is a matter entirely for the Sudan Government.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Arising out of the last point made by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, would he have a look at the exchanges which have taken place in this Chamber between hon. Members on this side of the House and the Colonial Secretary and the Commonwealth Secretary about the whole pensions position being reconsidered and about the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government for these pensioners being looked at in a new light?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, I certainly have seen those exchanges, but I am afraid that I cannot add anything to what has been said by my right hon. Friends in those exchanges.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING VESSEL "RED CRUSADER" (INCIDENT)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now make a detailed statement of the issues presented to the international commission of inquiry

into the "Red Crusader" incident, indicating the submissions made on each of them and the decisions of the commission, and the steps that are being taken on those decisions.

Mr. P. Thomas: The Commission was requested to investigate the facts of the incident in the terms set out in the Exchange of Notes with the Danish Government of 15th November, 1961. The decisions of the Commission are set out in their report which, as my right hon. Friend told the House on 4th April, has been published by the two Governments and placed in the Library of the House. I should prefer not to comment on the Commission's findings while the report is still under consideration.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Joint Under-Secretary of State for such details as he has given, may I ask him if he is aware of the more recent threats by the relevant Danish Minister about further shooting by Danish gunboats at trawlers in certain circumstances, and that therefore the details of that particular incident and of the issues laid before the tribunal and the findings, are of he utmost importance to the British fishing industry, fishermen and owners so that they may know exactly what their rights are and where they stand in their relations with Danish gunboats and the Danish Government?

Mr. Thomas: I was not aware of any such threats. I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman will let me know what they are.

Mr. Hughes: I will certainly send the hon. Gentleman particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENEVA DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the progress achieved at the Geneva Disarmament Conference.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the present position at the Geneva Disarmament Conference.

Mr. Heath: There have now been altogether twenty-three plenary meetings of the Conference, three meetings of the


Committee of the Whole, and eight meetings of the Nuclear Tests Sub-Committee. The plenary meetings have mainly been occupied with detailed discussion of the preamble to, and the first article of, a draft treaty for general and complete disarmament. The United States Delegation have just tabled a large and detailed document, setting out basic provisions for a Disarmament Treaty. We are very glad that this full explanation of Western proposals has been tabled.
The Committee of the Whole to discuss more limited measures has so far only discussed war propaganda.
Discussion on nuclear tests has continued in the Sub-Committee and the plenary meetings. The Soviet Government still refuse to agree to any international verification. But new proposals have now been put forward by eight Governments represented at the Committee and are under consideration.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the sympathetic comments by the Minister of State on the proposals put forward by the eight neutral delegates, can we be told that in the view of the Government these proposals constitute a satisfactory basis for a test ban treaty, and, if so, bearing in mind that the United States tests are due to begin at the end of next week, would the Government be prepared to join with the United States Government and the Soviet Government in an agreed treaty on the basis of the proposals of the eight neutral countries?

Mr. Heath: In the Conference yesterday my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the American representative put a number of questions to the neutral countries which have drawn up these proposals for the purpose of clarifying them, and we must now await the answers from the neutral countries in order to be able to form a judgment on how satisfactory the proposals are.

Mr. Prentice: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that many of us, while having absolutely no sympathy with the Soviet attitude on verification, are a bit worried about the reactions to the neutral proposals? Can he tell the House on what sort of points the neutral countries, with their limited experience, can answer these detailed questions? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a danger of giving the impression that the

Western Powers may be stalling for time while the Conference goes into Easter recess with the Christmas Island tests due to start a few days later? Would it not be more satisfactory to give positive approval on the basis of the proposals of the neutral countries?

Mr. Heath: There is no question of stalling in this matter, but they are very vital matters for the defence of the West and for our country. The questions put were put by the Minister of State and the American representative and were put as quickly as possible after these proposals were tabled, and they are basic ones about the operation of the proposals. I think the netural countries will be in a position to deal with them.

Mr. Mayhew: While the Soviet rejection of the principle of verification is totally indefensible, is there really, in practice, any decisive difference between the British-American plan and the neutrals' plan? If the Soviet Union violates the agreement by continuing testing, would it not also violate agreed provisions for verification? Will the Lord Privy Seal represent to the Americans that it would be a terrible mistake to go ahead with new tests without first examining in the most careful and sympathetic way these proposals put forward by the neutral countries?

Mr. Heath: I have indicated that we will give them the most careful consideration, and that was the purpose of the questions put yesterday by the two representatives.

Mr. Henderson: Can we take it that this consideration will be of an urgent character in view of the fact that there is only a question of days?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. We shall give it urgent consideration.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in the last resort neutral countries will not be allowed to determine the size, scope, nature and user of British armaments, including the nuclear deterrent?

Mr. Heath: That is a separate question from this neutral proposal which deals only with tests.

Mrs. Castle: Can we have an assurance that the American tests will be delayed


long enough to enable proper consideration to be given to this hopeful new initiative?

Mr. Heath: I have given the House an undertaking that we shall examine the proposals with the greatest care and urgency. I cannot go further than that.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what he has said is not an answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)? Are we not to infer cleanly from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the negotiations are still open, that the door is not finally barred and locked? If that is so, and since Christmas Island is a British territory, could not the right hon. Gentleman indicate that the facilities on Christmas Island would not be readily afforded for atmospheric tests which are those which do not require verification, by common consent? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Would not that be a reasonable thing to do? Is it not clear that once the tests have been made, negotiations thereafter would be extremely difficult?

Mr. Heath: The position is that the Soviet Government have rejected entirely the principle of verification. These neutral proposals cover this matter and it is necessary to elucidate exactly what is involved in them. There is also the question of awaiting the Soviet reply to the neutral proposals, which has not yet been made. I cannot give further information to the House than I have already given.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH PREFERENCE

Mr. Russell: asked the Lord Privy Seal what discussions he has had recently with the United States Government about the future of Commonwealth Preference.

Mr. Heath: My discussions with the United States Government must remain confidential if they are to fulfil their purpose of providing an opportunity for a free and frank exchange of views.

Mr. Russell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that at the Montreal Conference only three years ago Commonwealth countries agreed that Commonwealth Preference was of benefit and should not be weakened or discarded?

Will he make that clear to the American Government and anybody else who asks for Commonwealth Preference to be abolished?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. The United States Government are now well aware of our views.

Mr. Wise: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the destruction of Imperial Preference has been a major object of American policy ever since Mr. Cordell Hull's abortive attempt to conspire with the Japanese in 1921? Will my right hon. Friend also lose no opportunity to make absolutely clear in negotiations with the Americans that we are not yet a colonial subject of the dollar empire and, by the grace of God, never will be?

Mr. Heath: I know the views put forward by my hon. Friend are held by certain people, but I do not wish to comment upon them. These negotiations are not being carried out with the American Government. At the same time, one must recognise that if they are brought to a successful conclusion there may well be additional discrimination against American trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Mr. Shinwell: the Lord Privy Seal whether the decision of the European Assembly to describe itself in future as the European Parliament was supported by the United Kingdom delegates; and, in view of this decision, if he will take steps to arrange that the United Kingdom delegates are in future appointed by a resolution of the House and not through party machinery.

Mr. Heath: Membership of the European Parliamentary Assembly, which at its recent Session decided to change its name to the European Parliament, is confined to representatives of the six member countries of the European Communities, and does not include delegates from the United Kingdom. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Berlin

Mr. Henderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the present situation in Berlin


with special reference to recent Soviet activities in the air corridors.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Lord Privy Seal what protests have been made to the Russian Government about metal foil alleged to have been found in East Germany and to have been used for the purpose of interfering with British radar

Mr. Heath: Certain Soviet activities in the air corridors to Berlin, notably the dropping of metal strips which could endanger the safety of flight, have caused Her Majesty's Government concern. My noble Friend, together with the United States Secretary of State, consequently protested strongly against the dropping of metal strips to the Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs before the opening of the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. This interference has now ceased. Her Majesty's Government were also concerned at the Soviet practice, which has continued until recently, of making flights in the air corridors which seem designed to hinder unrestricted freedom of flight to and from Berlin. In concert with their French and United States allies, they delivered a further Note on this subject to the Soviet Government on the 24th of March.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the importance of maintaining the access routes into and out of West Berlin, may I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government are in agreement with the proposal of the United States Government that an international authority of thirteen members should be established to supervise these routes, containing members both from West Germany and East Germany?

Mr. Heath: We have been kept fully informed and consulted about the proposals which the American Government have in mind, and we agree with them.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to the story told in the House of Lords by the Foreign Secretary on 28th March that six Russian bombers had dropped this chaff and that the corridors were full of metal chaff for four to six hours? Does he still adhere to that story? It it true?

Mr. Heath: That is the information which my noble Friend has.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has received from the Government of the United States of America regarding the progress of the current United States-Russian talks on Berlin.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the latest stage of East-West negotiations for a peaceful settlement of the German problem.

Mr. Heath: The United States Secretary of State held lengthy discussions with Mr. Gromyko when he was in Geneva last month on the subject of Berlin. In this he was supported by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. By common consent these discussions are now being pursued between Mr. Rusk and the Soviet Ambassador in Washington. The first meeting took place on 16th April. Her Majesty's Government are being kept fully informed of the conduct of these discussions.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the reported proposals of the United States Government seem sensible and constructive? Will he say whether the Government are abandoning the idea of associating the United Nations in some way with a Berlin settlement? Secondly, will he say whether the Government will not put forward more positive proposals regarding the Oder-Neisse Line, perhaps in connection with the proposals put forward, we understand, by the Americans for a non-aggression pact?

Mr. Heath: We have debated this point on a number of occasions. My noble Friend and I have always said that we give full weight to suggestions of this kind which are made. At the same time, we cannot give information about specific proposals being discussed in talks of this kind.

Mr. Allaun: While feeling that the new Western proposals, as "leaked" in Bonn, are a reasonable approach towards a settlement, may I ask whether the Minister will give an assurance that the British Government will not allow the West German Government to go on vetoing a settlement which the British Government themselves think is sound?

Mr. Heath: The American Government is keeping in the closest touch with the British Government and the French Government in this matter, in which all have responsibilities, and with the Federal German Government, which is so obviously affected by it. The Federal Government has itself expressed its confidence in the conduct of these talks by the American Government.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the suggestion that there should be international control over access to West Berlin, in which the East German Government could participate, is one that will be warmly welcomed on this side of the House? Can he assure the House that these proposals put forward by the American Secretary of State have the support of all the Western Powers?

Mr. Heath: As I have already said, I cannot give details about specific proposals which are being discussed between the American Secretary of State and the Soviet Ambassador, but I have naturally noted the point which the Leader of the Opposition has made.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us feel that it would be better if Britain were taking part in these discussions? It is all very well to be kept informed, but, as a leading nation of the world, why are we not there playing our part?

Mr. Heath: When these talks were held in New York and Washington in the autumn of last year, my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary took part, and again when they were continued in Geneva a few weeks ago my noble Friend played a very prominent part in them. It is a question of arrangements between the allies as to how they are best conducted at any particular time.

Sir G. Nicholson: While I appreciate that these are very delicate questions, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend does not agree that it is highly desirable that an atmosphere of realism should be introduced, and that we should not cling nominally to aims that everybody agrees are quite unrealistic today, such as the Oder-Neisse Line?

Mr. Heath: If I may give my hon. Friend a delicate answer, it is that I always believe in being realistic.

Mr. A. Henderson: Would the Lord Privy Seal make clear that the reply which he has just given to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition does not go as far as his answer to me a few minutes ago, which indicated that Her Majesty's Government agree with the proposal that there should be international supervision of the access routes into Berlin? Did he not actually say that Her Majesty's Government agreed with that proposal?

Mr. Heath: I said that it is obviously one of the means of dealing with this particular problem of access to Berlin.

Mr. Mayhew: I was listening very carefully to the Minister. Did he not specifically say that the British Government supported this American proposal? Will he assure the House that that is so?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir; that is quite true.

Mixed Committee

Mr. Hale: asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) what was the date of the appointment of the British member to fill the vacancy on the mixed committee dealing with the dispersal of German industry; and what was the date of the most recent meeting of the Committee;
(2) what progress has now been achieved in the deconcentration of the assets of Alfried Krupp, in accordance with High Commission Law No. 27, announced to the House on 4th March, 1953.

Mr. Heath: The new British member of the mixed committee (Sir Sydney Littlewood) was appointed in December, 1961. The mixed committee met on 13th January and granted Herr Krupp an extension of six months, until 31st July, for the disposal of his remaining coal and steel assets.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is no longer a question of the character of Herr Krupp but that it is a question of the character of the Bonn Government and of Her Majesty's Ministers? Undertaking after undertaking has been given to the House and we have now reached a stage at which these things are said with a snigger. We have certainly reached a stage at which Ministers come to the


House and make statements with their tongues in their cheeks, conveying the impression that no one has any intention of carrying this out. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of us who have seen the vision of a United Europe and who supported it are not very anxious to go into a Common Market dominated by Alfred Krupp, Marshal Juin and General Salan?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Member has no justification for the sort of accusations which he made against Ministers in this matter. The mixed committee was set up to examine the position and to see whether the undertakings given in the Bonn Convention were being properly observed. On each occasion the mixed committee has recommended that the time period be extended. This happened in January of this year. The mixed committee is an independent body which is giving its own judgment about this matter.

Mr. Hale: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Biggs-Davison.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. The Minister asked for the permission of the House to answer two quite separate Questions together, admittedly dealing with the same matter, but one about deconcentration and the other about the mixed committee. I have asked a supplementary question about the appointment of the mixed committee and I want to ask the reasons for saying that deconcentration is to be postponed, and whether any reasons were given. That arises out of the other Question.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will forgive my saying so, it was one Answer. I do not desire to be critical in any way, but I was not very happy about the progress which we were making with Questions in general and with that Question in particular, and it was for that reason that I called the next question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Lord Privy Seal why the British plan for controlling tests, without on the spot inspections, through a string of Commonwealth posts in North America, the United Kingdom, Africa, Asia and Australia, was not sub-

mitted to the Disarmament Commission at Geneva.

Mr. Heath: There is no United Kingdom plan of the kind described. What we have proposed is a world-wide network of control posts, as set out in the United Kingdom-United States draft treaty of April, 1961.

Mr. Zilliacus: Were not proposals on these lines submitted by Sir Solly Zuckerman and Sir William Penny on a visit to Washington which they were satisfied would detect even minor underground tests? These were then opposed by the United States on the ground that they would not be acceptable to Congress and the whole scheme was then dropped and never put forward at Geneva.

Mr. Heath: No, Sir. I cannot give any indication of the views expressed between scientists during their conversations in Washington.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE (VISIT)

Mr. Turton: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on his talks with Mr. George Ball, the United States Under-Secretary of State, on 4th April on the subject of Great Britain's negotiations for entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on his discussions with Mr. George Ball regarding the conditions of British entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Heath: I was glad to be able to take advantage of Mr. Ball's recent visit to London by inviting him to exchange views with me on a variety of subjects, including those concerned with international economic relations. Our discussions were confidential.

Mr. Turton: Arising out of that reply, is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been considerable apprehension about these conversations? Will he give an assurance that the Government will not allow the relationship between Britain and the Commonwealth to be altered at the dictate of the United States Government?

Mr. Heath: There is absolutely no need for apprehension about these conversations. It is absolutely right that we


should each have a full opportunity of expressing quite frankly to each other our Governments' views. Of course, there can be absolutely no question of Commonwealth affairs being affected by a dictate of the United States Government, nor is there any question of the United States Government attempting to carry out such a thing.

Mr. Warbey: Have not the United States Government made it clear through Mr. George Ball that British entry into the Common Market will involve, after a transitional period, the disappearance of the Commonwealth system of preferences? Does the Lord Privy Seal accept that this is the case?

Mr. Heath: No, Sir. Those are not the views that have been expressed to us, and the last part of the question therefore does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH VIETNAM

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the nature of the assistance which has been given by the British Police Mission in South Vietnam in the preparation and organisation of Operation Sunrise, through which South Vietnamese peasants in guerilla-controlled areas are forcibly moved from their settlements into fortified village camps, while their homes and food stocks are destroyed.

Mr. P. Thomas: None, Sir.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this operation, which involved the forcible movement of 123 families from their homes and the destruction of their homes, with most of the contents, before their eyes, and the burning of their food stocks, was described by the New York Times correspondent on the spot—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I am asking a question. Is the Minister aware that the New York Times correspondent on the spot described this operation as being—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]— based upon the plan operated by the British in Malaya?

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for you to bring about such conditions in the House of Commons as would enable us to hear what is being said?

Mr. Speaker: I would be grateful if hon. Members would be more quiet. I wanted to hear if the hon. Member for Ashfield's supplementary question was going to be in order or no, but I could not hear it. So far, it appears to be an inquisition of the Minister by way of asking whether he is aware that some newspaper has reported something. I would like to hear the rest of the question, if the House will allow me.

Mr. Eden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your difficulties, but is there not some way in which you can persuade certain hon. Members who habitually make speeches at Question Time to put more concise questions?

Mr. Speaker: It is very much in the general interest that hon. Members should make supplementary questions short. I say so so often that I get very long in saying it myself. Would the hon. Member for Ashfield be good enough to repeat his question?

Mr. Warbey: I would be grateful if hon. Members opposite would allow me to put my question. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this operation, stated to be one in which 135 families were forcibly herded from their homes and their homes destroyed before their eyes, has been described as being based upon a plan operated by the British in Malaya? Can he give an assurance that the British Police Mission in Vietnam, on which £100,000 of taxpayers' money is being spent, has given no advice whatsoever on the conduct of this operation?

Mr. Thomas: I am afraid that I cannot comment on the contents of Press reports. But, as I said in my original Answer, the British Advisory Mission is not concerned in the planning of any specific operations, including Operation Sunrise, which is the sole responsibility of the Vietnamese Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

Cairo Radio Broadcasts

Mr. Longden: asked the Lord Privy Seal if, in view of the mischief being caused in Africa, including the Colonial Territories, by radio propaganda from Cairo, he will give consideration to the severing of diplomatic relations with Egypt.

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo has raised with the Government of the United Arab Republic on a number of occasions the question of offensive radio broadcasts. These have recently become somewhat less objectionable.

Mr. Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my Question should have referred to the mischief intended to be caused in our Colonial Territories in Africa? Does his Answer mean that Her Majesty's Government consider that the scurrilous matter being hourly broadcast by Cairo radio, referred to in the Lebanese Press as "empty trumpetings", is beneath contempt?

Mr. Heath: We take the strongest exception to broadcasts of this kind. That is why our ambassador in Cairo has repeatedly protested. I was informing the House that there has been some amelioration of these broadcasts recently since the action we have been taking.

British Property

Mr. Dance: asked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the dissatisfaction and confusion in the minds of people who have property still in Egypt, if he will send a small delegation, consisting of representatives from the three parties, to Egypt to study the position regarding this property and to report back to him.

Mr. Heath: No, Sir. I do not think that such a delegation would be able to achieve a useful purpose.

Mr. Dance: I fully appreciate my right hon. Friend's difficulties here, but at the same time does not he think that some form of inspection of this sort would alleviate the concern in the minds of people who are implicated at the present moment by their property still remaining in Egypt and by not knowing whether it is still there or what condition it is in?

Mr. Heath: We are naturally anxious to remove all their anxieties in the same way that we are anxious to remove the difficulties which exist in carrying out the Financial Agreement between us and the U.A.R. There is our Embassy in Cairo and agents of many of these people are also there. If we can be of assistance in a particular case which my hon. Friend has in mind perhaps he will write to me about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INSTITUTE FOR UNIFICATION OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

Mr. Mathew: asked the Lord Privy Seal what financial or other contribution was made last year, and what contribution it is proposed to make during the coming year, to the International Institute for the Unification of Private International Law in Rome.

Mr. P. Thomas: A contribution of £350 was made for last year. It is proposed to pay the same amount for the present year.

Mr. Mathew: I am grateful for that reply, but will not my hon. Friend look at this matter again for next year, in view of the immensely valuable work, not least in this country, being done by this Institute? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to raise the sum to an amount more realistic and more compatible with the work being done in Rome?

Mr. Thomas: The question of increasing our contribution is under consideration in the light of the proposals made at the Tenth Session of the General Assembly of the Institute.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Lord Privy Seal what further steps are being taken to improve Anglo-Egyptian relations; and what are the main unsettled issues that impede improvement.

Mr. Heath: We are trying to achieve a friendly and businesslike relationship with the United Arab Republic. Her Majesty's Ambassador saw President Nasser on 25th February and spoke frankly of our relations and mutual interests. The discussion helped to remove misunderstandings on either side and I hope that such exchanges will continue.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of my Question and name specific issues which, in his opinion, are still impeding some kind of reconciliation?

Mr. Heath: There are certain things such as the matter I mentioned in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), and the outstanding points about the Financial


Agreement of 1959, together with questions arising out of the nationalisation law of last July, affecting British citizens. There are also further questions arising out of the re-sequestration of some British property towards the end of last year. These are some of the practical matters which are causing difficulties between us. The Minister of Finance of Egypt was in London a short time ago, when I was able to have a full discussion with him about these points. I hope that this may lead to a settlement of the outstanding issues.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS BONDS

Mr. Prentice: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will increase the number of United Nations Bonds to be purchased by this country, in view of the decision of the United States Senate to make the purchase of bonds over the value of $25 million, up to a maximum of $100 million, dependent upon the United States' figure being matched by the total purchases of other countries.

Mr. P. Thomas: No, Sir.

Mr. Prentice: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the policy of Britain on this matter could have an influence on the eventual purchases made by the United States and perhaps other Governments? Could he at least promise the House that the Government will keep this under review and make sure that no action of theirs will prevent the financial crisis in the United Nations being solved by adequate purchases of these bonds?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. I am sure that our policy can and does have an influence on the United Nations. Our purchase of £12 million worth of bonds was one of the first to be announced, and it is still the second largest, the American purchase being the biggest. But it is the most that we are prepared to contemplate.

Mr. Mayhew: Maybe this is the second largest contribution, but it is nothing like enough in relation to What we need to give to the United Nations in order to erase the impression that the Government are half-hearted in their support of the U.N.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMUNIST PORTS (BRITISH SEAMEN)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Lord Privy Seal what complaints have been received by Her Majesty's Government on discourteous treatment of British seamen visiting Communist ports.

Mr. P. Thomas: Her Majesty's Government have received few such complaints in recent years: one this year from Odessa, and four in 1960 from Chinese ports.

Mr. Mayhew: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the walking-off by British crews from ships carrying grain to China? As this trade is in the general interest, will he not look into it and see what action can be taken?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to this report. I think that it would properly be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Sir C. Osborne: Is not my hon. Friend aware that as in China at the present time there is greater hunger than in any other part of the world, should we not do our best to get food there and not impede it?

Mr. Thomas: I can certainly say that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to maintain and if possible to increase trade with China.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the creation of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation force armed with nuclear weapons.

Mr. Heath: The North Atlantic Council is conducting a general review of strategy in the course of which it will no doubt consider suggestions of this kind. I would not wish to anticipate these discussions by making a statement now.

Mr. Allaun: I appreciate that, but is it not vital that a ban on the spread of nuclear weapons should apply to N.A.T.O., as otherwise the West German generals would indirectly obtain them,


including 100 Polaris missiles? Can the Lord Privy Seal ensure that Britain opposes any such move at the N.A.T.O. Ministers' Meeting starting on 1st May?

Mr. Heath: I know of no proposal that the control of such weapons should be given to other countries. The arrangements are the "key of the cupboard" arrangements by which they remain under American control.

MR. ZACHARIA AND MR. ARESTIDOU

Mr. Paget (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the exercise of the discretion granted to him by Section 6 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, he will decline to return to the Government of Cyprus Mr. A. Zacharia and Mr. E. Arestidou, at present detained in Brixton Prison under that Act.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am considering these cases, in the light of the proceedings yesterday in another place and all other relevant considerations. I shall make my decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Paget: What further facts does the right hon. Gentleman require in this case? Is is not common ground that these alleged offences took place during the period of the troubles, when these men were serving with us in concert with the Special Branch of the security forces; that they have been condemned to death by E.O.K.A., that six others have been murdered since independence, that two attempts have been made on the life of Mr. Zacharia, and that at his last appearance in a Cyprus court the policeman to whom he was handcuffed was shot dead?
Is not a proposal to return our ex-friends to our ex-enemies a somewhat excessive act of political contrition? Is it not a bit discouraging to our friends elsewhere? Is there an example of this other than Stalin's return of the German Communists to Hitler? What further information is required? In any event, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that no decision contrary to the interests of these men will be taken without reference to Parliament and Parliament's reassembly?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I can give an immediate assurance in reply to the last part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. The period of fifteen days runs so that it overlaps Parliament's return, and if any decision unfavourable to the men were to be taken it would not be implemented before the House returns and I have had an opportunity of making a statement to the House.
On the other hand, I must make it clear that I do not accept the insinuations in the early part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement. A decision favourable to these men may be taken and implemented before the House returns, but I must make it clear that I may not be in a position to do that before the House returns. I am referring first to the unfavourable and then to the favourable decision.
No immediate decision has been taken because, although I certainly have views on this subject, it is reasonable for me to read the transcript of the proceedings in another place. The transcript is not yet available. I have read the full report in The Times and digested it, but I have not yet been able to read the transcript, which will not be available for me until tomorow. I must restrain my decision until I have considered the transcript.

Mr. Goodhart: Will my right hon. Friend remember that these two men have given very valuable information to British security in the past and that their surrender to the Cypriot Government might well strike a very hard blow at those who still work with British Intelligence elsewhere?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am deeply aware of that consideration.

Mr. Hale: I am sure that the whole House will have listened to what the right hon. Gentleman has said with very keen appreciation of what he said and the way he said it. The Times today talks about fifteen days. There does not seem to be a limit on the number of days he must take over this decision. The judgment of the House of Lords was given some days ago and in the normal case the period dates from the date of judgment and not from the later date when the judges give their reasons.
Will the right hon. Gentleman extend his assurance and say that he may give


a favourable decision, but that if he finds that that is not possible he will not take any action, or reach any unfavourable decision, which would be operative until there has been an opportunity to raise the matter in the House under Standing Order No. 9?
I had intended to seek to do that today, but, obviously, it would have been a very great inconvenience to the House and also premature while the right hon. Gentleman was considering the matter. I hope that we shall be able to protect our rights under Standing Order No. 9 and be able to raise the matter, although I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make a favourable decision.

Mr. Butler: I gave an assurance that an unfavourable decision would not be taken without the House being informed and having an opportunity to express its views. I think that that is the least we can do.
On the technical matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, in concluding its proceedings on 19th March the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords said that the time of fifteen days prescribed by Section 6 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, would not run until the House of Lords itself had dealt with the report of the Appellate Committee. The House of Lords dealt with that report yesterday and, therefore, it is technically from yesterday that the fifteen days run.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for the first week after our return after the Easter Recess?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 1ST MAY—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill [Lords], and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Sea Fish Industry Bill: Remaining stages.
WEDNESDAY, 2ND MAY—Supply [14th Allotted Day]: Committee.
A debate will take place on Housing in England and Wales, on the appropriate Votes.
THURSDAY, 3RD MAY—Finance Bill: Second Reading.
FRIDAY, 4TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 7TH MAY—The proposed business will be: Consideration of private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, Report and Third Reading of the Health Visitors and Social Workers Training Bill.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Leader of the House tell us anything more about the debate on the Central African Federation? Will it take place during the following week and, if so, what form will it take? Can he give us an assurance that whether or not particular Questions are reached tomorrow, the Prime Minister will make a statement on two things before the Easter Recess, namely, the state of the negotiations on nuclear tests and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference?

Mr. Macleod: The debate on Central Africa will follow within a day or two of the business which I have announced. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are having discussions about the precise form it should take.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be answering Questions tomorrow and in answer to those, or by means of a statement, I think that he will deal with both points which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has raised.

Dame Irene Ward: Am I to understand that on Monday we are to have only half a day on Report and Third Reading of the Health Visitors and Social Workers Training Bill? As most knowledgeable people concerned with the Bill entirely disapprove of its weakness, although agreeing with the principles involved, does the right hon. Gentleman think that half a day is sufficient? There is a good deal to be said.

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. I think that it can be done in this time, but, of course, we shall suspend the Standing Order for that part of Monday's business and so not be limited to an hour or so.


The Bill had only four sittings in Standing Committee and it is a Bill which, on balance at least, both sides of the House want to see on the Statute Book.

Mr. C. Pannell: Presumably in cooperation with you, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the House proposes again to set up a Committee to consider accommodation. Will he consider having half a day to debate this subject when we return from the Easter Recess, as the new terms of reference for the Committee seem even narrower than the old, in that they are concerned with the development on the other side of the road and not with practical problems which will be facing us in the next few months?
I suppose that this building is to be extended and another storey added, but even then we do not know what allocation of accommodation will be made. Already, there is some discontent about the allocation of accommodation in St. Stephens, a discontent which should be aired. Does not the right hon. Gentlemen agree that the House could well devote two or three hours to its own affairs?

Mr. Macleod: The accommodation available on the Bridge Street site will not be available for some years, but I would think it right to ask the advice of a Committee of the House, and Mr. Speaker has agreed to this course. This is a complicated matter to discuss in this way. If the hon. Gentleman would like to come and see me, assuming that he can find his way to my room, I would be very glad to discuss this with him.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who, unfortunately, were not able to take part in the Budget debate, would it be possible, because of the difficulties in which you, Mr. Speaker, may be placed on Thursday because of the number of hon. Members who want to take part in the Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill, for the time to be extended?

Mr. Macleod: I would not have thought that that was necessary because the ordinary business of that day is not subject to the usual rule.

Miss Herbison: Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to

the time that he has allocated for the Social Workers and Health Visitors Training Bill? I ask that partly for the reasons adduced by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), and partly because the Leader of the House will no doubt be aware that during the consideration of the Scottish part of the Bill no responsible Scottish Minister was aavilable to deal with it, as he was tied up in a Committee on another Bill. Unless further time is provided, the only discussions that will take part on the Scottish part of the Bill will be in the late hours of the night or the early hours of the morning.

Mr. Macleod: I will consider the point made by the hon. Lady. My impression is that the business that I have announced for Monday, 7th May, could easily be taken that day, but I will be glad to consider the hon. Lady's point.

Sir A. V. Harvey: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not refer to the pensions of Service widows in his Budget proposals, is the Leader of the House now prepared to find time in the early future to debate the Motion which is supported by more than 200 Members?

[That this House, recognising the hardship suffered by retired officers, pensioned other ranks and widows of the armed services, especially those who are old, whose retired pay and pensions cannot be debated under Pensions (Increase) Bills and bear no relation to current awards, urges Her Majesty's Government immediately to improve the pensions of widows bereaved before 4th November, 1958, and to examine the conditions peculiar to all armed service pensioners and, as soon as economic circumstances permit, to introduce special provisions to improve their retired pay and pensions.]

Mr. Macleod: I am aware of the support for this Motion, but as far as announcing business is concerned, I must rest on my previous statement.

Dame Irene Ward: Up with democracy, down with the Executive.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Having tried five or six times to get this Motion debated, I beg to give notice that I shall raise


this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are consuming our own time by frivolous noises.

Mrs. Braddock: Can the Leader of the House say what happened arising out of his consultation with the Home Secretary about the possibility of seeing the film of the Orpington by-election count?

Mr. Macleod: I understand that the position there was that both the B.B.C. and I.T.V. transmitted it live, and that no film is in existence.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Has my right hon. Friend noted that since the creation of the Department of Technical Cooperation in July last year there has not been a debate on its functions? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the publication of the annual memorandum by this Department last week could well provide a valuable opportunity for such a debate?

Mr. Macleod: I will take note of that. It seems an appropriate topic for a Supply Day or some other day.

Mr. S. Silverman: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a number of Questions from both sides of the House to the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour showing a great deal of anxiety about the developing crisis in the cotton industry and in Lancashire generally? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is grave public anxiety about this? Can he offer any hope of an early opportunity of debating this in the House?

Mr. Macleod: Apart from the opportunities available in Supply, which are considerable between Easter and Whit-sun, no.

Mr. Loughlin: Has the Leader of the House considered the possibility of finding time to discuss Civil Defence? He must be aware that it has not been discussed for a long time. It has recently been discussed in another place, and it is of prime importance that we should have a full discussion on it. Will he try to find the time to discuss this subject?

Mr. Macleod: Looking ahead in the period that I am covering with this business statement, I cannot see an opportunity for that.

TRANSPORT BILL

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), further considered.

Clause 29.—(THE TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY.)

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, in page 27, line 5, at the end to insert:
(7) It shall be the duty of the Holding Company to exercise its control over any wholly-owned subsidiary of the Holding Company so as to secure that the subsidiary does not engage in manufacture or production except the manufacture or production of things for use in their own business or for supply to a Board, or a wholly-owned subsidiary of any of the Boards or of the Holding Company, for use in their business.
For the purposes of this subsection the expression "wholly-owned subsidiary" means a subsidiary all the securities of which are owned by the body of which it is a subsidiary, or by one or more other wholly-owned subsidiaries of that body, or partly by that body and partly by any wholly-owned subsidiary of that body.
Last night I started on an explanation of this Amendment, and I should like to take up where I left off We had a discussion on Clause 13 which defines the powers of the four statutory boards. Under Clause 31 (6) three companies are transferred to the Holding Company, which, of course, is not one of the four statutory boards. Clause 29 covers the duties and responsibilities of the Holding Company.
May I look at the three limited companies now owned by the British Transport Commission, but which under these proposals will be transferred to the Holding Company? May I look at their present position and what restrictions are placed on them, and then try to explain the Amendment in the light of what exists at the moment?
Under Section 2 (4) of the Transport Act, 1947, there are two types of limitation on these three companies. The three companies are Star Bodies (British Transport Commission) Ltd., Bristol Commercial Vehicles Ltd., and Eastern Coachworks Ltd. Two of the limited companies make bodies and one makes chassis. At present they are subject to two types of restrictions. First, there are statutory limitations on the number of road vehicle bodies and chassis which


the companies can manufacture in any one year. These statutory quotas apply to the output of the three companies. I mention this because I believe that these limitations are unduly restrictive and ought not be retained, because if we have assets which we want to be used to their maximum it is surely better not to place restrictions on what they can produce. I therefore propose to alter in this respect the Act which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite passed.
The present limitation is unduly restrictive. First, under Section 2 (4) of the 1947 Act, it amounts to a quota on the manufacture of chassis, related to the actual position prior to nationalisation. It was frozen at a given figure for all time. The Commission cannot manufacture chassis for road vehicles substantially in excess of the total manufactured in a year by the undertakings that were acquired by the Commission, so that even if the assets were capable of being deployed more effectively this provision would prevent it because the basis of calculation is the year in which the largest number of chassis were manufactured out of the last three years before acquisition.
The second limitation was on the manufacture of bodies, and that was made up of a proportion of one-fifth of the estimated annual requirements of the Commission plus the quota of bus bodies which the London Passenger Transport Board could have manufactured under Section 21 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933.
The third restriction was a quota on the manufacture of bodies of vehicles other than buses, and was fixed at one-quarter of the estimated annual requirements of the Commission. The fourth restriction, which really was a great restriction on the output of these companies, was a ban on the manufacture of major components for road vehicles other than those required for chassis. These components are defined in Section 2 (5) of the 1947 Act as complete power units, complete transmission systems, complete suspension systems, complete steering gear, complete braking systems and complete axles. Those are the restrictions which now apply to these three companies, under that Act.
Under that Act another restriction was imposed, namely, that the output of these

three companies cannot be sold in the open market, but must be sold within the Commission's organisation. The Amendment will alter the existing system to some extent. First, the restrictions on the output of whatever these firms produce—the quota system—will go. It will be replaced by a flexible Ministerial direction. If, for example, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) returned triumphant at the next General Election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not think that there is any hope of that, or I would not have used the phrase—but if he were returned, and became Minister of Transport, it would be his judgment that would replace this rigid quota system. Nothing could be fairer than that.
The shackles which the party opposite placed on the companies will be removed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will apologise for putting shackles on those companies, and will accept the Amendment, which will help them.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Will the Minister tell us what is the capacity of these three companies?

Mr. Marples: If I have to go into details it will take a long time, but I am prepared to do so.

Mr. Popplewell: It is so small that the proposal is ridiculous.

Mr. Marples: It may be that the capacity is very small, but, in that case, why did the party opposite put on the shackles?
Under the provisions of the 1947 Act the output of these three companies cannot be sold in the open market, and must be sold entirely within the Commission's organisation. The Amendment secures that the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the boards or the Holding Company—that is, these three companies, among others—shall not manufacture for sale in the open market, either home or export, but shall be able to sell only to the four statutory boards or their wholly-owned subsidiaries. Therefore, those three companies will be in precisely the same position as they are now in relation to the people to whom they can sell, but the onerous restriction of the quota will be removed.
Many outside pressure groups have asked me to continue the statutory quotas, but I think that that is wholly inappropriate, and that the assets should be used to the maximum. I have also been asked to write into the Bill a provision placing a duty upon the Holding Company to dispose of these companies. I have resisted that. The Amendment should, therefore, be welcomed by the Opposition. It removes the restrictive quotas, while maintaining the market which the party opposite thought right and proper in 1947. In view of the fact that we have very little time at our disposal, I hope that hon. Members opposite will quickly accept the Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: As I understand the Amendment which is now before the Committee it has nothing to do with quota restrictions. Those are removed by other provisions in the Bill. If I am wrong about this the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me, but it seems to me that the Amendment merely ensures that the output of these companies shall not be sold outside the publicly-owned transport services. That is all that it does. It has nothing to do with quota restrictions. The reasons why these restrictions were imposed in 1947 were explained by me yesterday, and I do not wish to repeat what I then said. There were very good reasons in those days, which do not apply now. But we are not considering that.
We are considering an Amendment dealing with the output of these companies, which produce very good vehicles and chassis. One of them has been producing some outstanding models. The Amendment provides that they shall not sell their products outside the publicly-owned sector of the transport industry. However good these models may be, and however profitable their sale might be in the private sector of the industry, they are not to be sold there.
The output of these firms is minute compared to that of the chassis and body-producing companies. I cannot understand why the Government, who are so anxious that the publicly-owned transport system should maximise its profits—or reduce its losses, which comes to the same thing—should place this restriction on these small companies. As the Amendment is concerned solely with

this restriction I must advise my hon. Friends to oppose it.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I have mixed feelings about the Amendment. One of the firms to which reference has been made operates in my constituency. I had hoped that these restrictions would not be placed on the industry. The coach-building industry is now going into a slight decline. Coaches which are built nowadays are of far better quality than they used to be, and last much longer. Furthermore, owing to the production of so many cars, fewer buses are required. If a coach-building firm is to run efficiently and properly it must try to maintain its output, and there is always a danger that this kind of restriction will result in these companies having to run down their commitments and output. From that point of view I am sorry that the Amendment has been moved. I would rather the Parliamentary Secretary had stuck to his guns, as he did in Committee.
Having said that, however, it is clear that the removal of the restrictions laying down a quota is of some help in establishing the building of an integrated bus, as opposed to one with separate chassis and coachwork. I hope that the advantages of this group of companies—especially Bristol Commercial Vehicles Ltd. and Eastern Coach Works Ltd.—will be realised by the Committee. They are of great advantage to the Holding Company. When they were first started they were small companies, carrying out maintenance work, but they developed into production units. They belonged to the Tillings Group from the earliest days— long before the companies were nationalised—and they were on the production side of the group. They were considered part of the commercial enterprises of the Tillings group, and up to 1947 they worked in the open market.
They exported to South Africa and other countries, as well as providing an outlet for the Tillings group of bus companies. Many advantages flowed from that arrangement. The bus operating companies were able to get the buses they wanted, of a standard uniform type, which helped in maintenance. Eastern Coach Works Ltd. and Bristol Commercial Vehicles Ltd. were able to


concentrate on production, knowing that they had a reasonable throughput each year, and did not have to worry too much about their commercial side.
4.0 p.m.
The Tillings group has taken practically all of the buses in recent years although one or two other parts of the nationalised industry did take a few. It has been stated in the Press that there is a movement to get rid of these companies and to offer them back to private enterprise—

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Prior: —and I wish to examine this matter, because I think it important. I have already discussed it with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), and I know his views.
We are in the position of having two small companies which have always been associated with the Tillings group. They were there before nationalisation and they were nationalised with that group. They were there for one reason, because the Tillings group, as a private enterprise firm, thought that these companies, Eastern Coach Works Ltd. and Bristol Commercial Vehicles Ltd., were necessarily a part of the group so that it could conduct its business properly. These companies were there for no other reason at all. It was a straightforward commercial enterprise. They were nationalised alongside—

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: My hon. Friend keeps talking about Tillings as being nationalised. In fact, it never was. The shares were sold voluntarily to the Transport Commission.

Mr. Prior: I will accept that. The fact is that now it is nationalised and these companies still belong.
Among the proposals which have been advanced—I am glad to say not by my right hon. Friend—is one that these companies should be sold off. What we are saying is that Tillings, which, in its wisdom as private enterprise operators, considered these companies necessary to its production, should be told by this House that because it happens that the companies make vehicles the present position is all wrong and that they are

no longer to do it. In other words, we shall place this nationalised industry, this bus operating group, at a disadvantage which the group has always appreciated, because otherwise it never would have gone into the manufacturing market in the first place.
I hope that no direction will be given for denationalisation. Not because I think that these companies could not pay their way if they were denationalised —I think that they could do extremely well—but because we should be placing the nationalised bus companies, the operating companies, at a grave disadvantage, and I do not see why we should do that. If it happens that the chairman of the Holding Company is given a directive that he can offer these companies for sale there are certain conditions which I think that he ought to consider.
First, the chairman of the Holding Company and the chairman of the Tillings group should be able to make representations to the Minister on this subject and should be able to show how the selling off of those companies would affect the operations of the bus companies and the smooth running of the group. Secondly, I should like the Minister to give an undertaking not to sell off these companies—

Mr. Nabarro: No. May I make quite clear to my hon. Friend now that I want the Minister to do exactly the opposite and give an undertaking to sell these companies, in order that there shall not be an extension of nationalisation? Mine is the true voice of Toryism.

Mr. Prior: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster that I appreciate his view. It may be that he will allow me to state my view, and to finish my sentence.
I was saying that I should like the Minister to give an undertaking that if he sells off these companies, if he even thinks of doing so, he will also give an undertaking to see that the company which comes in will at least maintain a continuity of employment in these firms. I believe that it is practically impossible for any private enterprise firm to give such an undertaking. That means that I do not really want them to go. I want to be perfectly straightforward about this. I do not regard it as


being anti-nationalisation, or anything of the sort. To me, this is purely a commercial enterprise and just common sense.
I had meetings in my constituency during the election, at which I roundly condemned the nationalisation of steel and was in favour of denationalisation. But I certainly said nothing of the sort about Eastern Coach Works Ltd., and I do not intend to back out of that now. What does worry me is that there are still some restrictions to be placed on this company. But I quite understand this, because if a company is to use public money, and it is possible that this company will do so, regard must be had to the competition of private enterprise.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he will have an opportunity of proving his words later that the test is in the Division Lobby?

Mr. Prior: I should have thought that the hon. Member would know me well enough by now to appreciate that I do not stand here and say one thing and then do another thing. I resent the implication that I should not do the logical thing.

Mr. Nabarro: Send for the Chief Whip!

Mr. Prior: I hope that we may get some sense into this matter. The main point at issue is that these companies are now doing a good job. I think that I am right in saying that they have paid their way quite satisfactorily in recent years and that the bus operating side has not been the side of the industry which has been losing money.
I hope that the Minister will resist any efforts to get rid of these companies on purely political grounds. That would be a mistake, and I do not think that it would be in the true interests of the Conservative Party, either. I say that in all sincerity. I feel that the Conservative Party is a party of common sense, and I hope that we shall remain one. I have no hesitation in saying that, on balance, I support the Amendment. Although I am a bit disappointed by it, I think that it is better than anything which we have had before.
I hope that the Minister will stick to what he has done so far and that Eastern Coach Works Ltd., and Bristol Commercial Vehicles Ltd., will have a prosperous life in the future.

Mr. Nabarro: This is one of the rare occasions when I find myself completely in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth—

Mr. Prior: The hon. Member for Lowestoft.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior)—I knew that it was something to do with fish.

Hon. Members: Wrong again.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said that the output of these companies was tiny and, relatively, their output is very tiny. Last year these companies made about 2,200 units, out of a total output of commercial vehicles and chassis in the entire United Kingdom amounting to 463,000. Therefore, these companies made half of 1 per cent., or one two-hundredth part. In that respect their output is tiny. But there are matters of political principle involved. That is why I have been continuously engaged in conversation with my right hon. Friend the Minister about these principles as they are applied both to Clause 13 and to Clause 29.
When the quantitative restriction was placed on the output of the three companies under the 1947 Act, it meant that, translated into the output of last year, the figure of production was about 2,200 units. If, under the terms of this Amendment, they are able to build vehicles and chassis for all the boards, their maximum output would be 6,000. The effect of this Amendment, therefore, is to treble the maximum potential output of the three companies. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not quarrel with those figures.
As it is trebling the productive potential of these nationalised undertakings, it represents, in this context, an extension of nationalisation. That is why I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, with the greatest sympathy for his constituency interest, that I am


concerned with the matter of principle. An extenson of nationalisation is anathema to me—

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) followed the proceedings of the Committee, he would have noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary said that the present output of the three companies together amounted to about 90 per cent.—I have not the exact figure—of their capacity. I have the figures here, which I could quote.

Mr. Nabarro: But that is a totally invalid argument, because although, today, output is 90 per cent. of their capacity, there would be, in the terms of this Amendment, nothing to prevent expansion of their productive capacity up to the total requirements of the boards, which is a total of 6,000. That represents, potentially, a trebling of the capacity of these firms, and, therefore, to me, a direct extension of nationalisation, to which I am vehemently opposed, not only in this context but in other contexts.
I have always been very greatly opposed to nationalised undertakings engaging directly in the manufacture of productive equipment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We had all these arguments ad nauseam on the Electricity Bill in 1957. When that Bill was first brought to the House, it provided for the Central Electricity Generating Board and Area Boards being able to manufacture their own equipment such as turbo-alternators, boilers, and electrical equipment of that sort. I fought a long battle in Committee to get those Clauses out of that Bill, and get them out of the Bill I did before it went on the Statute Book, because the majority of Conservatives take the view that nationalised industries should not engage in the manufacture of productive equipment or extend their productive capacity. These are matters of principle.
I want now to address a word to my hon. Friend she Member for Lowestoft. I quite realise that he has here a strong constituency interest. It would be remiss, in a constituency sense, if he did not plead that interest here, but I could not accept that interest as overriding a matter of principle in my Conservative philosophy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I am a man of stern principles;

that is all I am in this House for. Socialist hon. Members would not admit that there is any common sense in Conservative philosophy, but I am a man of stern principles as to Conservative philosophy.
My hon. Friend had a majority at the last election of 1,489, and if I had a seat as marginal as that I might need to have a still greater regard to constituency interests—

Mr. Prior: I should hate my hon. Friend to think that this is just a constituency interest. It is a matter of some considerable principle, because we are saying now that the Conservative Party for all time has to denationalise everything that has anything to do with manufacturing, regardless of whether or not that manufacturing interest is considered necessary for the proper running of something which is to remain nationalised. In the present case, here were private enterprise firms which had a manufacturing interest because it was considered necessary for their proper running. When they were nationalised, they were both nationalised together. We are now intending to split them, and I do not think that that is necessarily Conservative philosophy.

Mr. Nabarro: We are putting a different interpretation on these matters. I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend, and he said that Tillings owns one of these companies. That should not be regarded as an excuse for the retention of the subsidiary to manufacture vehicles and chassis. Tillings was taken over after nationalisation, and I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) that the amount paid for it was £24 million.
I do not want to denationalise just this one firm in my hon. Friend's constituency. If I had my way, I would denationalise all the firms engaging in manufacture named by my hon. Friend. I would denationalise all of them. I would do an S. G. Brown act on them all. I go further, and say, "Do not only sell the subsidiary, but sell Tillings, too." That would destroy my hon Friend's case at once—

Mr. Prior: That would make much more sense.

Mr. Nabarro: I agree, but I must not push my right hon. Friend the Minister


of Transport too far or too fast— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) is, as usual, ill-informed, and has failed to do his home work. Had he read the statement made on the Bill by the Minister without Portfolio, Lord Mills, in another place, he would have noticed that the noble Lord said that this is not a denationalisation Bill. That is why my right hon. Friend is not denationalising these firms under this Measure, but, when the moment comes, he has the powers to denationalise, and my advice to my right hon. Friend the Minister is to sell these firms—get rid of them—as fast as ever he can.
4.15 p.m.
In the next Session of Parliament, when this Measure has reached the Statute Book, I shall harry him and pursue him, in that sense, to dispose of these manufacturing firms which, in my judgment, have no place in the national ised transport fabric—

Mr. Archie Manuel: Is not the hon. Gentleman painting a slightly distorted picture?

Mr. Nabarro: I am never distorted.

Mr. Manuel: Is he not aware that the main thing is that Tillings voluntarily offered its shares, and voluntarily wanted to be publicly owned? The hon. Member now wants to force the firm back, in an undemocratic way, into the private enterprise economy, even though it voluntarily decided to go the other way.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member seems to be a trifle distorted in his views—

Mr. Manuel: No, that is a fact.

Mr. Nabarro: The plain fact of the matter is that, as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, a market value is established. If my right hon. Friend could sell Tillings for £24 million or more, I would be in favour of his selling it—which would include the subsidiary in my hon. Friend's constituency—but, in the context of these three small firms with an output representing one-half of 1 per cent. of the national output of commercial vehicles and chassis, I say, get shot of them as soon as possible. Then my right hon. Friend and myself will be friends again.

Mr. R. Gresham-Cooke: The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) have very much underrated the size and importance of these three companies. A figure of 0·5 per cent. of total capacity has been mentioned, but what has not been mentioned is that the total production of double-decker buses is about 9,000. If the total requirements of all the boards—which would be about 6,000—were taken into account, these three companies could, between them, make over half the production of double-decker buses. That would be a very serious proportion of the national output of these buses.
I well remember the negotiations that took place on this matter with the Labour Government in 1947. It was just by chance that these three companies fell into the nationalisation net. They were part of the Tillings group, which was nationalised, and which took with it these three companies. It was agreed that it was reasonable that the State should not expand these three manufacturing companies, that it would be unfair to do so and that it would be unfair to pour in State capital to make them much bigger. A quota was put on these three companies.
Bristol Commercial Vehicles Ltd. had a quota of 1,250, the result of a complicated formula. Eastern Coach Works Ltd. had a quota of 750 and Star Bodies Ltd. had a quota of about 450. In fact, they are all making very nearly up to those figures at the moment. Bristol Commercial Vehicles is making rather over 1,000, Eastern Coach Works is fully up to capacity, and Star Bodies is making about 300. No one can say that the assets are being under-employed; they are being fully employed.
As these three companies fell into the nationalisation net by chance, and as my right hon. Friend is asking private enterprise to give up a great deal in giving up the quotas which have been imposed on these three companies for the last thirteen years, creating the possibility of making them very big companies, I ask him to do two things. First, he should use his powers while in office, and his successors should use their powers, to maintain the production of these three companies at about the present size and should not


allow them to expand. It would be wrong to use State capital to expand them, first, because they might be operating at a loss without our knowing it, and that would represent unfair competition, and, secondly because it would be against the spirit of the original agreement.
My right hon. Friend should make efforts to sell these companies back to private enterprise. That is the practical thing to do. I am not very happy about the Amendment, but if my right hon. Friend makes that statement he will meet the difficulties which many people feel about this. It is quite wrong for a Conservative Government to continue to hold these companies and to allow the Holding Company to build up a private empire manufacturing double-decker buses in this country. It is quite wrong and contrary to the spirit in which the Labour Government took these companies over and the spirit of the 1947 Agreement. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say that he will sell these companies in a reasonable time.

Mr. Spriggs: Did the hon. Member vote against the 1961–62 Estimates on the use of public money for agriculture, involving £348 million, and the £30 million for the cotton industry, and the £8 million in connection with the distribution of industry?

Mr. David Webster: On a point of order. Are the voting activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) in order on this business?

Mr. Speaker: The object of the intervention should be limited to elucidation of the speech being made. At present, I am not impressed by the process of elucidation, but we shall see.

Mr. Spriggs: Hon. Members opposite, and particularly the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), do not vote against the use of public money for private enterprise, but they refuse to agree that similar money should be used for public purposes.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Agricultural subsidies have nothing to do with this debate, in which we are discussing the extension of three manufacturing companies in the transport world.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The speech of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is worthy of a reply, although at 4.30 p.m. we have to deal with this Amendment and a number of Clauses which we cannot possibly discuss adequately, if at all. The hon. Member has some admirers in the House.

Mr. Nabarro: Very few.

Mr. Mellish: Very few indeed. He does not hesitate to declare what he regards as the great principles. The fact that he and his hon. Friends hold these principles is a reason that they are doing so badly at the polls.
What the hon. Member said earlier was that he would lend no encouragement at all to anything owned by Britain as a nation and that he would not encourage it to make profits, but would rather give it to private enterprise under any circumstances. This is the fundamental difference between him and people like him, on the one hand, and my hon. Friends and I.
We have argued again and again that if it can be shown, as we honestly and sincerely believe it can, that by running what we call productive assets within a nationalised industry they make a profit for that industry and, we hope, for Britain, that should be done. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) was proud to point out that they are doing that in his constituency. In those circumstances we believe that we should not only encourage them, but should help them to expand and to grow.
We make no apologies for that point of view. I am glad that the hon. Member for Kidderminster put his view on record. I am passionately fond of Britain, but I am getting a little sick and tired of the suggestion that anything owned by Britain must be sneered at and jeered at by the hon. Member for Kidderminster and people like him. We shall go into the Lobby and support what we believe to be in the best interests of the country.

Mr. G. Wilson: The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has misunderstood the Conservative philosophy as expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). The point is that a trading concern ought to be prepared to take risks. If


it does not take considerable risks and chance making considerable losses, it is not doing its job. We had an example of that the other day in the steel industry where a company took considerable risks and lost.
Conservative philosophy is that a nationalised industry ought not to be taking this sort of risk, because it is dealing with public money, and that it is not right for manufacturing concerns to be nationalised, because either they then do not take sufficient risks to do the job or they risk public money in a manner in which it should not be risked.

Mr. Mellish: That is where the argument is so illogical and where my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) is right. No objection is raised by hon. Members opposite to pouring millions of pounds of public money into certain sections of the community. But when it comes to a nationalised industry, not a single penny must be given. That is the kind of attitude to which we object.

Mr. Nabarro: Why did not the hon. Member vote in respect of the potato scheme last night?

Mr. Wilson: It is not a question of profit, but a question of risking public money. If they are not taking risks they are not doing their job.

I would point out to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that Tillings voluntarily sold out, but did so under threat. In their 1947 Act, hon. Members opposite provided that there should be area schemes to operate between road and rail, and it was intended under the Act to have some elaborate organisation which would bring the bus services under public control by indirect means. The three company groups which then existed— Thomas Tilling, Scottish Motor Traction and B.E.T.—took different lines about it. The first two sold out their shares because they were not prepared to fight this proposal, but B.E.T. hung on to its shares, and a partnership developed between B.E.T. and the railways. Scottish Motor Traction and Tillings sold all their shares to the railway companies and, therefore, disappeared as entities, although not as companies.

In other Clauses of the Bill we have had a lot of trouble trying to sort out exactly what is to become of the shares of such companies resulting from the merger which took place with Tillings and Scottish Motor Traction, on the one hand, and the fact that B.E.T. remained separate and distinct, on the other.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 200.

Division No. 167.]
AYES
[4.30 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bullard, Denys
Emery, Peter


Aitken, W. T.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Allason, James
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Errington, Sir Eric


Arbuthnot, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Balniel, Lord
Channon, H. P. G.
Farr, John


Barber, Anthony
Chataway, Christopher
Fell, Anthony


Barlow, Sir John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Finlay, Graeme


Barter, John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Fisher, Nigel


Batsford, Brian
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cleaver, Leonard
Freeth, Denzil


Bell, Ronald
Cole, Norman
Gammans, Lady


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Collard, Richard
Gardner, Edward


Bidgood, John C.
Cooper, A. E.
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Biffen, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gibson-Watt, David


Bingham, R. M.
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John


Bishop, F. P.
Coulson, Michael
Glover, Sir Douglas


Black, Sir Cyril
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Bossom, Clive
Critchley, Julian
Goodhart, Philip


Bourne-Arton, A.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Goodhew, Victor


Box, Donald
Cunningham, Knox
Gower, Raymond


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Curran, Charles
Grant, Rt. Hon. William


Boyle, Sir Edward
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.


Brewis, John
Dance, James
Green, Alan


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gresham Cooke, R.


Brooman-White, R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Gurden, Harold


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Doughty, Charles
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Drayson, G. B.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Bryan, Paul
Eden, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Buck, Antony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)




Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Seymour, Leslie


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Sharples, Richard


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maddan, Martin
Shaw, M.


Hay, John
Maitland, Sir John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hiley, Joseph
Marlowe, Anthony
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Speir, Rupert


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mawby, Ray
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hobson, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hocking, Philip N.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Holland, Philip
Mills, Stratton
Tapsell, Peter


Hopkins, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hornby, R. P.
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Morgan, William
Teeling, Sir William


Hughes-Young, Michael
Morrison, John
Temple, John M.


Jackson, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


James, David
Nabarro, Gerald
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Jennings, J. C.
Noble, Michael
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Turner, Colin


Joseph, Sir Keith
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Osborn, John (Hallam)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Vane, W. M. F.


Kimball, Marcus
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Kirk, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Kitson, Timothy
Peel, John
Walker, Peter


Lagden, Godfrey
Peyton, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon Sir Derek


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Wall, Patrick


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pitman, Sir James
Ward, Dame Irene


Leavey, J. A.
Pitt, Miss Edith
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Webster, David


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lilley, F. J. P.
Protumo, Rt. Hon. John
Whitelaw, William


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Pym, Francis
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Longbottom, Charles
Quonnell, Miss J. M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Longden, Gilbert
Ramsden, James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Loveys, Walter H.
Rawlinson, Peter
Wise, A. R.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rees, Hugh
Woodnutt, Mark


McAdden, Stephen
Renton, David
Woollam, John


MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Worsley, Marcus


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Roots, William



Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayre.)
Russell, Ronald
Mr. Frank Pearson


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Scott-Hopkins, James
and Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Ainsley, William
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Albu, Austen
Deer, George
Hannan, William


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dempsey, James
Harper, Joseph


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Diamond. John
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Awbery, Stan
Dodds, Norman
Hayman, F. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Driberg, Tom
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)


Beaney, Alan
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Benson, Sir George
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Blackburn, F.
Edelman, Maurice
Hilton, A. V.


Blyton, William
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Holman, Percy


Boardman, H.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Holt, Arthur


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Houghton, Douglas


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)
Evans, Albert
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)


Bowles, Frank
Fernyhough, E.
Hoy, James H.


Boyden, James
Finch, Harold
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fitch, Alan
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Fletcher, Eric
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Forman, J. C.
Hunter, A. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Callaghan, James
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Janner, Sir Barnett


Chapman, Donald
Greenwood, Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grey, Charles
Jeger, George


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Darling, George
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gunter, Ray
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)







Kelley, Richard
Padley, W. E.
Stones, William


Kenyan, Clifford
Paget, R. T.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Ledger, Ron
Pargiter, G. A.
Swingler, Stephen


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Parker, John
Taverne, D.


Lipton, Marcus
Paton, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Loughlin, Charles
Pavitt, Laurence
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Lubbock, Eric
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Frederick
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


McCann, John
Pentland, Norman
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


MacColl, James
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Thornton, Ernest


McInnes, James
Popplewell, Ernest
Thorpe, Jeremy


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Prentice, R. E.
Tomney, Frank


McLeavy, Frank
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wade, Donald


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Probert, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Warbey, William


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Randall, Harry
Watkins, Tudor


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rankin, John
Weitzman, David


Manuel, Archie
Redhead, E. C.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mapp, Charles
Reid, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Marsh, Richard
Reynolds, G. W.
Whitlock, William


Mason, Roy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wigg, George


Mayhew, Christopher
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mellish, R. J.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Willey, Frederick


Mendelson, J. J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Millan, Bruce
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Milne, Edward
Ross, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mitchison, G. R.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Monslow, Walter
Short, Edward
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Morris, John
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Moyle, Arthur
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Woof, Robert


Mulley, Frederick
Small, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Neal, Harold
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Zilliacus, K.


Oliver, G. H.
Sorensen, R. W.



Oram, A. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank



Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Owen, Will
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.

It being after half-past Four o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Four o'clock.

Clause 34.—(TRANSFER OF STAFF.)

Amendment made: In page 34, line 23, leave out from "subsection" to end of line 27 and insert:
may be reported to the Minister of Labour by any party to the agreement and, if a dispute so reported is not otherwise disposed of, that Minister shall refer it for determination by the industrial court."—[Mr. Hay.]

Clause 55.—(THE NATIONALISED TRANSPORT ADVISORY COUNCIL.)

Mr. Speaker: I call the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) to move the Amendment in page 53, line 39, to leave out "advising the Minister on such" and to insert:
submitting to the Minister from time to time, as they think fit, a general review of transport problems and advice on".

Mr. Strauss: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Clause 34 has been

amended, does the House not have an opportunity of voting on the Clause as a whole if it so desires?

Mr. Speaker: We are not in Committee. We do not have any vote on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", on consideration.
The next Amendment selected is that in the name of the right hon. Member, which I have mentioned. I assume that it would be convenient to discuss with it the following Amendment in page 53, line 40 to leave out "or any" and to insert:
of transport in the public interest or such".

Mr. Popplewell: I beg to move, in page 53, line 39, to leave out "advising the Minister on such" and to insert:
submitting to the Minister from time to time, as they think fit, a general review of transport problems and advice on".
I think that there is wisdom, Mr. Speaker, in your suggestion that we should discuss this Amendment with the Amendment which immediately follows.
We are discussing the only Clause in the Bill which, by any stretch of the imagination, gives any power with a view to the chairmen of the four boards and the Holding Company meeting under the


chairmanship of the Minister to discuss any form of co-ordination or integration. This, we think, is a very weak Bill. The powers given to the National Transport Advisory Council as defined in the Clause are of a very negative character. We seek to put some teeth into the Clause and to define the powers of the Advisory Council, as outlined in the words of the Amendment:
submitting to the Minister from time to time, as they think fit, a general review of transport problems and advice on.
Since the Tory Government were returned in 1951 we have had a spate of legislation on transport matters. In this Bill we are, in effect, seeing the turn of the full cycle. When we left office there was a transport undertaking in which there was a small Transport Commission and a number of executives, each responsible for a given form of transport. The Government which came in in 1951 destroyed that function and destroyed those executives. It established a very much enlarged Commission and empowered it to run the transport industry which had come under public ownership.
Tory ideology has learned some lessons. It has found that the structure established in the 1953 Act is no longer workable. Therefore, the Government propose the establishment of four boards plus a Holding Company without the overall co-ordination of the Transport Commission looking at transport as a whole. In effect, they turn the full cycle and we get back to some extent to the old executives established under the 1947 Act, but with the great weakness that there is not overall control.
4.45 p.m.
The Bill establishes this infantile body, the National Transport Advisory Council, which will discuss with the Minister any items which he refers to it. This is a ridiculous position. The Bill says that the Council will advise the Minister on such matters
relating to the co-ordination, or any other aspect, of the nationalised undertakings as the Minister may refer to the Council.
Taking the literal interpretation of the Measure, this means that the powers of this Advisory Council will be so circumscribed that it can do nothing unless the Minister suggests it in the first place.
In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary made many references to the vertical structure of each of these boards and the Holding Company and disclaimed any desire for a horizontal linkup in the various structures, claiming that the Advisory Council would have the power to co-ordinate. The most ridiculous thing is that we find the Advisory Council has no power to make any recommendation unless the Minister refers to the Council.
By any stretch of the imagination this cannot be termed a form of co-ordination. The Parliamentary Secretary has had to yield on a number of occasions and to say that the working agreements established under the 1928 Acts, although the parent agreements are destroyed, would still be operative.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I do not understand what the hon. Member is saying. Will he repeat that?

Mr. Popplewell: During the Committee stage, when we were discussing this vertical structure, the Parliamentary Secretary got away from his brief and tried to claim that the working agreements established under the 1928 Acts would still be operative.

Mr. G. Wilson: They are.

Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) may disagree with the Parliamentary Secretary, but I am quoting his words and the hon. Member can look them up.

Mr. G. Wilson: I am saying that they are certainly operative.

Mr. Popplewell: If the hon. Member would listen he would know that that is the point I have been making. First, the Minister claimed that there was a vertical structure very tightly wound round each of the boards. Then he had to shield himself by saying that the working agreements of the 1928 Acts would still be operative. He said that there would be co-ordination in so fax as the bus companies were concerned.

Mr. G. Wilson: He also said that the parent agreement still subsisted.

Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Member for Truro said that the parent agreement would be overthrown. In the Bill the parent agreement is overthrown.

Mr. Hay: Will the hon. Member say where?

Mr. Popplewell: Is it in Clause 12?

Mr. Hay: I do not know.

Mr. Popplewell: Perhaps I shall have an opportunity to look it up, but it is there. It is stated that the parent agreements under the 1928 Act—it will take a little time, but I shall hand it over to the Parliamentary Secretary later. He knows that it is there as well as I do.

Mr. Hay: I do not.

Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Gentleman is just shielding behind it.

Mr. Webster: I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) could explain.

Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend will give the information in a moment.

Mr. Webster: Otherwise, we shall not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Popplewell: I shall look it up and pass it across to the Parliamentary Secretary in a little while. In the meantime, let us consider this complete lack of co-ordination and the way in which the Minister is relying on these working agreements.
The Parliamentary Secretary shielded himself by suggesting that the National Advisory Council would supply this necessary co-ordination. My argument is that, according to the definition contained in the Clause, the Minister will decide just what the Council will discuss. My hon. Friends feel that if the Council is to be worth anything at all it must have some clearly defined powers by which it can work effectively. Hence the Amendment which, we hope, will be accepted.
If the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) will study Clause 4 he will find that subsection (2) states that
The Railways Board shall not in exercise of the powers conferred by the said Acts of 1928 without the consent of the Minister—
Thus, before the 1928 parent agreement can be operated the Minister must approve what is proposed to be done. That is exactly the point I am making.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman really must stop trying to mislead the House,

and I am sorry to have to use that phrase. He should have quoted the whole of that passage, which reads:
The Railways Board shall not in exercise of the powers conferred by the said Acts of 1928 without the consent of the Minister—
(a) enter into any agreement for the provision of services for the carriage of passengers by road …
That clearly refers to a new agreement and not to those which existed by virtue of the 1928 Acts and which were made a long time before. The hon. Gentleman made a wildly wrong point and I think he should withdraw it.

Mr. Popplewell: When the Parliamentary Secretary gets away from his brief he goes wrong, as usual. The 1928 agreements referred to the carrying of passengers by road, because it was those agreements which enabled the railway companies to enter into partnership with the bus companies. As I say, when the Parliamentary Secretary leaves his brief he gets led astray very badly. I notice that even the hon. Member for Truro is not supporting him.

Mr. G. Wilson: If the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) thinks that, I urge him to read subsection (2, b), which states:
… except in pursuance of an agreement under the said Acts (whether entered into before or after the passing of this Act) provide any service for the carriage of passengers by road …
that is, except for the 1928 Acts.

Mr. Popplewell: Exactly. It refers to passengers by road, which is contrary to the basis of the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary and, as I have said, the 1928 agreements cannot be implemented without the consent of the Minister. Therefore, there is absolutely no form of co-ordination in any shape or form in the Bill and we hope that the diehard Tory ideology that each section of the transport industry can be self-supporting unto itself.
We all remember the strife in the railway industry between the wars, with each section of transport opposing the other in the courts, and we now say that some kind of co-ordination, such as that which operated for a brief span under the 1947 Act, is now required. Under that Act, for the first time for many decades, there was real co-ordination, although that policy was turned upside


down a little later. A return to that sort of strife is accentuated by the Bill. The taxpayer will have to bear a greater burden and my hon. Friends have tabled the Amendment to give the proposed new National Council the power to do a useful job of work.

Mr. John Peyton: The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) did not even begin to make out a case to support the Amendment. He certainly did not make a case for the wonderful transport system which he claimed was set up in 1947. No party has yet produced a wonderful system of transport. The Bill may be a step forward, but I do not share to the full some of the optimistic hopes that have been expressed.
By his Amendment, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West is asking for a considerable extension, not only of the powers of another body—I think that we are calling it N.A.T.A.C. or some such set of initials—but he is wishing to change its species. The new body must be concerned with the nationalised transport undertaking, in which there is a great need of co-ordination. We have had many examples of unprofitable bus companies often competing with unprofitable railway services and this sort of thing is not good enough. I accept, therefore, that there is some need for a coordinating body of the kind proposed, but I absolutely fail to see why this body should be completely changed in character and set up as another judge of public interest.
I believe that the Ministry of Transport has a job which has been fairly and squarely placed on its shoulders, but which the hon. Gentleman is now asking this changed body to do. It would not be right for my hon. Friend to even think of accepting the Amendment. Nevertheless, hon. Members have a part to play in this matter. We should not have a great many different organisations, of all sorts of hybrid kinds, judging the public interest when it is clearly the duty of the Minister and Parliament to fulfil this rôle. I hope, therefore, that the House will make short shrift of the Amendment.

Mr. Manuel: I wholeheartedly disagree with the hon. Member for Yeovil

(Mr. Peyton), who seems to think that there already exists sufficient ability in the various fields of transport endeavour in the members of the railway boards. The capabilities of these people to undertake all the work that would come under the aegis of the Advisory Council is circumscribed by the Bill's limitations on the selection of those people.
They may have knowledge of financial and industrial matters and of the organisation of labour, but my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) indicated that we are considering an Advisory Council which will consist, in the main, of people with technical ability who will advise on transport problems.

Mr. Peyton: That is exactly the point I was making; technical ability to advise on transport problems, but that they should not be set up as judges and arbiters of the public interest.

Mr. Manuel: Public interest does not come into this part of the Bill. The hon. Member for Yeovil should not rush into the Chamber at the last moment and seek to state his views.

Mr. Peyton: Nevertheless, I was making that point. The Amendment being discussed with the one moved by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West states:
… of transport in the public interest …

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: The point I am making is that the Minister has agreed to the setting up of a Transport Advisory Council, according to the Clause—and I am arguing from the Minister's point of view. That is in addition to the Railways Board, and we know the kind of people whom the Minister hopes to recruit to that Board. I assume that the members of the Advisory Council will not have the same sort of qualifications.
Possibly the Parliamentary Secretary can help us here. I presume that he has some idea of the type of person required. I assume, having some little knowledge of railways, that they should be able to advise the Minister on technical matters. The railway industry, however, is not an open book, the sort of industry where someone can be brought in from outside—and we are having too much of that at present. This


body advising on technical aspects of fairly obvious railway problems which may arise in, say, the next ten years would have a very valuable task to perform.
I submit that the Amendment is a good one. The Minister does not necessarily have to accept the advice which is given to him by this body, but surely he will agree that it would be wrong to say to such an advisory body, "You must not have any mind of your own; you must not submit any problem that you think should be submitted to the Minister. You should not commit yourself to anything; you must wait until the Minister refers a matter to you for your consideration, on which the Minister will give his final decision."
Surely we should allow the Advisory Council a little freedom. If it sees that something has gone wrong, it should have freedom to justify its existence and should be able to make to the Minister recommendations which it considers would be helpful to transport generally. In the final analysis it is the Minister who will decide whether to accept the advice. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point does not arise. He is protected, at any rate so long as we have a Tory Minister—although we cannot guarantee that that will always be the case. We would certainly welcome this extension of powers to the Advisory Council if there were a Ministerial change to someone of a different political complexion.

Mr. Hay: I think that a lot of the trouble with which this Amendment seeks to deal arises from the fact that the hon. Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) and for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) have not appreciated that this Clause is concerned with setting up what we call in the Bill the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council, and not the National Transport Advisory Council. There were a number of slips of the tongue by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West. He persistently referred to this body as the National Transport Advisory Council, but it is not. It is a council which is advisory to the Minister and is concerned only with nationalised transport undertakings.
In answer to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, the membership is not just a number of people chosen because

of their technical abilities; it is a number of people chosen because of the positions that they hold in the nationalised transport undertakings. If the hon. Member will look at Clause 55 (2) he will see that there is to be a chairman, a vice-chairman with five outsiders, if I may so call them, and then there will be the chairmen of the four boards, the chairman of the Holding Company, and
until the vesting date, the chairman of the Commission.
As we have said so often in the course of our debates, the object of the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council—or "NATAC" as we have come to call it for brevity—is to create a forum in which the chairmen of all the boards and the chairman of the Holding Company can meet together with the Minister and with a few independent people from outside to advise the Minister on the various matters which affect not transport generally, not national transport—but the nationalised transport undertakings. That is perfectly clear from the concluding words on page 53 of the Bill, at lines 40 and 41. Having said that about the ambit of the Council—

Mr. Ron Ledger: I am not clear about the interpretation which the hon. Gentleman has just given. The last two lines to which he has referred say that the matters on which the Advisory Council will advise the Minister will be those which the Minister may refer to the Council. Therefore, it would appear that the Council will have no right to promote a discussion of any kind. It will merely have to discuss matters which the Minister brings to its attention. Presumably, if he wishes to avoid discussion of any subject, he can do so by not referring it to the Council in the first place.

Mr. Hay: I had that point in mind and I shall deal with it fully in due course.
The effect of the Amendment would be substantially to enlarge the remit that we give to the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council. It would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) pointed out, give the Council a duty to submit to the Minister from time to time, if it should think fit, a general review of transport problems and give him advice on questions relating to


the co-ordination of transport in the public interest.
Indeed, if we look at the specific words of the Amendment, the Council's remit would not be confined to transport in this country. If we were to accept the words in the Amendment—
… a general review of transport problems
it would be perfectly in order and open to the Council to consider and put to the Minister its views on transport anywhere in the world. I mention that, not because I imagine the Council would do that, but to point out the width of the words which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West is asking us to put into the Bill.
We have always taken the view that the main task of the Council is to advise the Minister only on questions which arise from nationalised transport undertakings and particularly on the coordination of the services that they provide. The whole composition of the Council is designed for that purpose. While the Council will have regard to general problems which affect transport as a whole in this country, because they may well be relevant to the conduct of the nationalised transport undertakings, we think that it would be quite wrong to place upon the Council a statutory duty, as the Amendment would do, to review general transport problems in Britain.

Mr. Manuel: Is not the hon. Gentleman being unfair? The Amendment in line 40 seeks to leave out the words "or any" and to insert:
of transport in the public interest or such
and it would go on to read:
other aspects, of the nationalised transport undertakings …
—not international and all the rest of it, as the hon. Gentleman has been saying in order to confuse the House.

Mr. Hay: I am afraid that the hon. Member is as unfortunate in that intervention as he was in an earlier one. It is obvious that he has not even studied the Amendment in line 39 which is being discussed with the Amendment in line 40. The words of the Amendment are:
submitting to the Minister from time to time, as they think fit, a general review of transport problems and advice on".

Those are the words which the Amendment seeks to insert and that is the proposition before the House.

Mr. Manuel: So is the other.

Mr. Hay: I am entitled to dissect the Amendment and to point out the intrinsic ills that would flow if it were accepted. The hon. Gentleman must not be so naive as all that.
Secondly—and I want to make this point very forcibly—we take the view that this Council should be what its name implies, an advisory council. It should not have of its own volition executive functions or capacities of any kind. Its job will be to help and advise the Minister. This is the answer to the hon. Gentleman who asked about the Minister referring matters to the Council. The whole point is that if the Minister has an advisory council, advisory to him, he should have the right to say what subjects he wishes to be advised upon. That is why we have put these words in line 41, page 53.
We do not think that it is the job of this Council to do other than help the Minister by its deliberations. It should, therefore, confine its work and concentrate its attention upon those matters upon which the Minister requires assistance. For those reasons, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil that it would be quite wrong for the House to accept this Amendment. Our object is to have an advisory council, advisory to the Minister, concerned only with the nationalised transport undertakings, and one which will provide, as I have said frequently before, a place in which the whole subject of the coordination of the services provided by the boards, the Holding Company and their respective subsidiaries can be discussed. That is what we want and we must, therefore, resist the Amendment.

Mr. Strauss: We have made it clear throughout our discussions on the Bill that we regard the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council, as proposed in this Clause, with the greatest suspicion, and that we do not think that it will be any effective substitute for the supervisory effective control which the British Transport Commission had over all the publicly-owned transport elements. We think that it is very largely a piece of camouflage put up in defence of the


accusation that the Government are in fact doing away with any proper co-ordinating authority.
We are perfectly aware, as the Minister said, that in this Amendment we are trying to enlarge the authority and the work of this body. The Government have decided that such a body shall be established, and we have tried in Committee, and we are trying here, to give it a useful bit of work to do. In Committee, we suggested that it should be not only advisory but that it should have certain powers. That was turned down. Now we are suggesting that this body should not have any executive powers but should be something quite simple, and, I should have thought, obviously desirable—that is that it should advise the Minister and submit to the Minister its views on the general questions of co-ordination of transport both inside the nationalised sector and outside it.

Mr. Peyton: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is right that a body of this kind, apart from any other question, should have the power to make general recommendations about transport matters if no one concerned with privately owned transport is on the body?

Mr. Strauss: I shall come to that point in a moment. I was about to say that there is no difference between the hon. Member for Yeovil and myself concerning the desirability for further co-ordination of transport. He said in his speech that he considered that there should be much more co-ordination than there is at the moment. The question is who is to carry it out. The person with executive authority, and the only executive authority, will be the Minister. But he can do nothing without bringing a Bill before the House. Who is to advise him on these matters? It seems to us that the only body in existence, and the body best able to do this, will be the body proposed to be set up under the Bill, which will consist of the best authorities and the most knowledgeable people inside the public sector of transport—the chairmen of the boards, the chairman of the Holding Company, together with five people from outside whom the Minister may appoint. If this were really to be a body to give advice to the Minister on these wider

problems, there would be a case for putting among those five people representatives of private transport—a very strong case—and we would support it. The Minister has power to do that if he wants to.
It seems to us that here will be a body which is authoritative and knowledgeable and its work should not be confined to advising the Minister on matters concerning the nationalised sector of the industry alone. It should be in a position to submit to the Minister advice—this is all we suggest— on co-ordination inside and outside the nationalised industry. In other words, we have the same objective as the hon. Member for Yeovil. We think that this body would be a good one to do it— we know of none better—and for that reason we suggest this Amendment not in the belief that the Government will accept it, but because we know that it is a very wise and sensible one.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I feel that the National Transport Advisory Council will not—

Mr. Hay: It is "Nationalised". The hon. Gentleman must get it right.

Mr. Holt: What did I say?

Mr. Hay: "National".

Mr. Holt: The Nationalised Transport Advisory Council will not last long as a going concern in the form provided for in the Bill because, as the Minister himself said, it will have to be concerned with all aspects of transport in considering its own particular problems. I think that it will become apparent that the council could be an important instrument for taking a wide look at transport in this country as a whole in order to give advice to the Minister. There may be different views about the way in which the Council might be best altered, but I am absolutely sure—I made this point in Committee—that there is a job to be done by a transport advisory council covering all transport in connection with, for instance, the closing of uneconomic railway services and the possible closing of some uneconomic bus services.
How the Government intend to deal with these matters on the social side has not yet been made clear. My own view


is that, where these services are no longer economic and we cannot, therefore, continue an obligation on the railways to keep them going, though the Government want them to be kept going, they should be put up for auction, it being made clear how much subsidy the Government are prepared to allocate for keeping some bus services running in, for instance, the South-West or the North-East.
Matters of this kind will have to be considered by someone other than the Minister of Transport. I think that they must be looked at by a committee which does not take a purely local view but has regard to national policy in connection with transport. I do not see how such a committee can do its job without an expert staff in London where the committee will be sitting and also, I think, a small staff in the regions. It would probably be out of order if I were to develop some other aspects of the matter, but I think that this is tied up with future plans in connection with town planning, the location of industry and so on. I think that the Minister will eventually have to turn to an advisory

body—some of the members probably being paid fees—which will look at the problem at a fairly high level.

It is not entirely a matter of coordinating certain services. It is not even entirely a matter of reviewing the question of subsidy for unremunera services where it is necessary to keep them going for social or other reasons. There is also, in my view, a need to consider the proper development of the road system and the proper position of railways in modern society. There are even problems in connection with canals and so forth which should be taken into account.

It is very disappointing that the Minister has not in the Bill taken a wider look at the problem and grasped the opportunity of providing himself now with a high-level advisory council covering the whole field instead of one just looking at co-ordination within the nationalised transport industry.

Question put, That "advising the Minister on such" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 205.

Division No. 168.]
AYES
[5.21 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Ports, W.)
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Aitken, w. T.
Cleaver, Leonard
Gibson-Watt, David


Allason, James
Cole, Norman
Gilmour, Sir John


Arbuthnot, John
Collard, Richard
Glover, Sir Douglas


Balniel, Lord
Cooper, A. E.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Barber, Anthony
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Goodhart, Philip


Barlow, Sir John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Goodhew, Victor


Barter, John
Costain, A. P.
Gower, Raymond


Batsford, Brian
Coulson, Michael
Grant, Rt. Hon. William


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Critchley, Julian
Green, Alan


Berkeley, Humphry
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Crowder, F. P.
Gurden, Harold


Bidgood, John C.
Cunningham, Knox
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Biffen, John
Curran, Charles
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bingham, R. M.
Dance, James
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Deedes, W. F.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Bishop, F. P.
de Ferranti, Basil
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Black, Sir Cyril
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hay, John


Bossom, Clive
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bourne-Arton, A.
Doughty, Charles
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Box, Donald
Drayson, G. B.
Hiley, Joseph


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Duncan, Sir James
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Eden, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Brewis, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Emery, Peter
Hirst, Geoffrey


Brooman-White, R.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hocking, Philip N.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Errington, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hopkins, Alan


Bryan, Paul
Farr, John
Hornby, R. P.


Buck, Antony
Fell, Anthony
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Bullard, Denys
Finlay, Graeme
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Fisher, Nigel
Hughes-Young, Michael


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jackson, John


Channon, H. P. G.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
James, David


Chataway, Christopher
Freeth, Denzil
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gammans, Lady
Jennings, J. C.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gardner, Edward
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)




Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Morrison, John
Speir, Rupert


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Joseph, Sir Keith
Nabarro, Gerald
Stevens, Geoffrey


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Noble, Michael
Storey, Sir Samuel


Kimball, Marcus
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Studholme, Sir Henry


Kirk, Peter
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Kitson, Timothy
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tapsell, Peter


Lagden, Godfrey
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Leather, E. H. C.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Teeling, Sir William


Leavey, J. A.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Percival, Ian
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Lilley, F. J. P.
Peyton, John
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Litchfield, Capt. John
Pitman, Sir James
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pitt, Miss Edith
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Longbottom, Charles
Pott, Percivall
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Longden, Gilbert
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Turner, Colin


Loveys, Walter H.
Prior, J. M. L.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Vane, W. M. F.


McAdden, Stephen
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


MacArthur, Ian
Pym, Francis
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Rawlinson, Peter
Walker, Peter


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Maclean, Sir Fitroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)
Rees, Hugh
Wall, Patrick


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Rees-Davi, W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Renton, David
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Webster, David


Maddan, Martin
Rippon, Geoffrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maitland, Sir John
Roots, William
Whitelaw, William


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Russell, Ronald
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)
Seymour, Leslie
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mawby, Ray
Sharples, Richard
Wise, A. R.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Shepherd, William
Woodnutt, Mark


Mills, Stratton
Skeet, T. H. H.
Woollam, John


Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Worsley, Marcus


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)



Morgan, William
Spearman, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Peel and Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Dodds, Norman
Houghton, Douglas


Ainsley, William
Driberg, Tom
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)


Albu, Austen
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hoy, James H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Awbery, Stan
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Beaney, Alan
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hunter, A. E.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Evans, Albert
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Benson, Sir George
Finch, Harold
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Blackburn, F.
Fitch, Alan
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Blyton, William
Fletcher, Eric
Janner, Sir Barnett


Boardman, H.
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Forman, J. C.
Jeger, George


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Bowles, Frank
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boyden, James
Ginsburg, David
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Greenwood, Anthony
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grey, Charles
Kelley, Richard


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Kenyon, Clifford


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Ledger, Ron


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gunter, Ray
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Callaghan, James
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Chapman, Donald
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Lipton, Marcus


Cliffe, Michael
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Loughlin, Charles


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hannan, William
Lubbock, Eric


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harper, Joseph
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hart, Mrs. Judith
McCann, John


Darling, George
Hayman, F. H.
McInnes, James


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Healey, Denis
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
McLeavy, Frank


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Deer, George
Hilton, A. V.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Dempsey, James
Holman, Percy
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Diamond, John
Holt, Arthur
Manuel, Archie







Mapp, Charles
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Taverne, D.


Marsh, Richard
Probert, Arthur
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mason, Roy
Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Mayhew, Christopher
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mellish, R. J.
Randall, Harry
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Mendelson, J. J.
Rankin, John
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Millan, Bruce
Redhead, E. C.
Thornton, Ernest


Milne, Edward
Reid, William
Thorpe, Jeremy


Mitchison, G. R.
Reynolds, G. W.
Tomney, Frank


Monslow, Walter
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wade, Donald


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wainwright, Edwin


Morris, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Warbey, William


Moyle, Arthur
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Watkins, Tudor


Mulley, Frederick
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Weitzman, David


Neal, Harold
Ross, William
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Oliver, G. H.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Oram, A. E.
Short, Edward
Whitlock, William


Oswald, Thomas
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wigg, George


Owen, Will
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wilkins, W. A.


Padley, W. E.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Willey, Frederick


Paget, R. T.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Small, William
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Pargiter, G. A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Parker, John
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Paton, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Pavitt, Laurence
Spriggs, Leslie
Winterbottom, R. E.


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Peart, Frederick
Stones, William
Woof, Robert


Pentland, Norman
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Zilliacus, K.


Popplewell, Ernest
Swain, Thomas



Prentice, R. E.
Swingler, Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Spriggs: I beg to move, in page 54, line 38, at the end to insert:
(8) As soon as possible after the end of each calendar year, the Council shall make to the Minister a report of their exercise of their functions during that year, with such comments (if any) as they consider appropriate, and the Minister shall lay a copy of every such report before each House of Parliament.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On a point of order. Am I to understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the next four Amendments on the Notice Paper will be discussed with this Amendment? I had heard that that was so.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): We are a little way on. We are now discussing the Amendment in page 54, line 38, and discussing it, in fact, by itself.

Mr. Spriggs: Clause 55 (7) reads:
The Minister may pay out of money provided by Parliament to the persons appointed by him under this section such remuneration and such travelling allowances and allowances in respect of out-of-pocket expenses as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury determine, and the Minister shall provide the Council"—
that is, the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council—
with such officers and servants, and such accommodation, as appear to him to be requisite for the discharge of the Council's functions.

The Amendment reads:
As soon as possible after the end of each calendar year the Council shall make to the Minister a report of their exercise of their functions during that year, with such comments (if any) as they consider appropriate, and the Minister shall lay a copy of every such report before each House of Parliament.
I submit that this provision is vitally important. It would be completely wrong if this Council were to make reports which were secret in nature and which were not made available to Members of the House of Commons or were made available too late to be of any use to the House. With these few words, I commend the Amendment to the House.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Member for St Helens (Mr. Spriggs) has moved this Amendment quite briefly, but it is one which lends itself to brevity. Its simple purpose is to place an obligation on the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council to make an annual report to the Minister on the exercise of its functions, and it can add whatever comments it thinks appropriate. The Amendment would provide that the report should be laid before Parliament.
On the face of it, one would imagine that this was a perfectly reasonable proposition and that we ought to accept it. But I have explained why we cannot accept it. As I explained in dealing


with the last Amendment, the whole purpose of this body is to advise the Minister of Transport about the activities of the nationalised transport undertakings. It is not intended to have any executive functions of any kind. Therefore, any precedent that might be in the mind of any hon. Member of other nationalised industries which have similar advisory councils would be a false one simply because these councils have executive functions of various kinds. Moreover, as I explained in dealing with the last Amendment, the Minister takes the power under the Clause to sit as chairman of the Council. It may well be that the Minister will frequently exercise that function, and if the Council were then required to present, as the Amendment proposes, a report to the Minister, the Minister would be in the rather extraordinary situation of reporting to himself. Therefore, for that reason, we do not think that this would be a very good idea.
There is, however, a more compelling reason which I wish to put to the House and one which I think should be treated as conclusive. It is bound to happen from time to time that the advice which the Council will have to give to the Minister will be based on matters which are confidential. It is bound to happen that the Council will be obliged to go into confidential matters in some detail and if it were to make a fair and honest report to the Minister and thence to Parliament it would have to state that it was unable to disclose what these confidential matters were.
Alternatively, the Council would perhaps be in the position of having to consider and advise upon confidential matters and then, eventually, to make a report which would be published. In those circumstances its ability to deal with and handle confidential matters might very seriously be prejudiced because the Council would naturally say, "We must always bear in mind that we have to make a report to Parliament about this." For those reasons, I do not think that we can accept the Amendment.
I realise the point which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but if hon. Members will grasp the fact that the object of having the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council is simply and

solely for the purpose of assisting the Minister, to help him and to give him advice, but not to conduct an inquiry at large over the whole of our transport system, both public and private, then I think they will realise that there is no compelling reason why a report of this kind should be made either to the Minister or to Parliament. For those reasons I am afraid that I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Popplewell: We on this side of the House are absolutely astonished at the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to the case for this Amendment. He says that the reason for his objection to the Amendment is because the whole basis of the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council is to advise. While, of course, we appreciate that, we want to know what advice the Council is going to tender. Under the present structure of the Transport Commission its accounts are presented to the House yearly. We are able to raise any matters that we care to on those accounts. We can probe and see what advice is being given. This Bill is taking away that privilege.

Mr. Hay: I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has omitted to point out to the House that the reports of the four boards and of the Holding Company, which will contain the sort of information that is now in the annual report of the B.T.C., will be published and laid before Parliament and will be debated by the House in the ordinary way.

Mr. Popplewell: I have not overlooked that fact, but what the hon. Gentleman omits to say is that the Council, in fact, will have representatives from the respective boards that will meet the Minister. They will be above the board level completely and will be able to advise.

Mr. Hay: They are the chairmen of the boards.

Mr. Popplewell: Certainly they are the chairmen of the boards, but we shall be unable to investigate the advice which they will tender because it will not be made public. We shall not be able to investigate the working of the boards. At the moment we can investigate the working of the Transport Commission because it publishes a full account of


everything and there is no super body above the Commission. Here we are establishing a body, as it were, above the respective boards which are going to consult with the Minister.
We are extremely suspicious about this because we have known of investigations taking place into the various aspects of the British Transport Commission's undertakings in which the Minister has shielded himself by saying, "This is a Departmental report, a committee report and although I must take note of the advice tendered to me because it is of such a grave nature, you in Parliament will not be able to have any information about it." That has been the position in the past. The Advisory Council is to be the coordinating link between the Minister and the four boards and the Holding Company on matters which the Minister refers to it. Surely Members of the House are entitled to the information that it tenders to the Minister.
The Leader of the House is present. He jealously safeguards the interests of the House. I am sure that he will agree with what I have said. Since the Council will be the only co-ordinating link between the Minister and the four boards under the Bill, surely the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House and wishing to safeguard our rights, will say to his hon. Friend, "If you do not propose to do anything about this matter now, ensure that something is done about it in another place so that the rights of Members of the House of Commons are adequately safeguarded."
The Parliamentary Secretary says that certain matters with which the Council may deal may be confidential. I do not think that any other undertaking or service in the country has been subjected to as many inquiries, Departmental reports and investigations by Select Committees as the transport undertaking. Therefore, we say that any advice which a body with a say in the operations of this important service gives to the Minister should be made known to Parliament. We do not want to vote on this Amendment, because we wished to get on with other business, but, in view of the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude, unless we receive an assurance from the Leader of the House that he

himself will have a look at this matter to see whether something can be done to meet our wishes in another place, I think that we shall have to divide.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) contrived to look spendidly surprised when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary rejected the Amendment. My surprise at the Amendment having been moved from the quarter from which it has been moved is far greater and far more genuine than the hon. Member's surprise at the rejection of the Amendment. I should not dream of admitting that any stupid Amendment is ever moved from the Conservative benches, but if such a thing were to happen this is just the type of Amendment which one would describe as a silly Tory Amendment.
What the Amendment asks is that a nationalised undertaking should be compelled to air its domestic affairs in public to its own great prejudice. Had an hon. Member on this side moved this Amendment, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West would have been the first to say, "Here is another bit of Tory nagging, and we are not going to put up with it." I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman. His enthusiasm for the last Amendment has, so to speak, washed on into this one. He is still bogged down by the misconception in his mind that we are discussing a national transport advisory committee, which is exactly what we are not doing. I should have thought, that those apostles of purity on the Opposition benches who commend nationalisation in all its aspects would have been with me to a man. I rejoice in such a happy occasion and advise them, in their own interests, to vote against what would be a very silly Amendment moved from any quarter, but which, coming from that quarter, is self-defeating and asinine.

Mr. David Weitzman: At the risk of being called a supporter of a silly, stupid Amendment, I rise to support the Amendment. This may astonish the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), but there is good reason to support it. It is often said that the powers of Parliament are being greatly diminished, that


matters are being kept secret and that disclosures are not being made to the House of Commons.
5.45 p.m.
Let us examine what this Amendment does, and what this Council is supposed to do. Under Clause 55 (1), the function of this Council is to advise the Minister
on such questions relating to the co-ordination, or any other aspect, of the nationalised transport undertakings as the Minister may refer to the Council".
The Parliamentary Secretary says that the advice which the Council gives may often be confidential and he wonders how a confidential report can be laid before Parliament. He also says that the Minister will often have to take the chair and that it would be a delicate situation if the Minister had to report to himself. But the Minister often may not take the chair. Even if the Minister takes the chair, the advice and decision are by the Council. Why they should not be made known to the House, I do not know. If extremely confidential matters are dealt with, they need not be reported, or if a piece of advice is given

which depends on information which is confidential it can always be said in the report, "These are confidential matters."

The House of Commons has an administrative duty under this Bill. This Bill does certain things and the Council is charged with certain functions. The House of Commons is a watchdog in these matters. Every piece of information should be put before it unless it is so confidential that the House is not entitled to know about it.

Why the Parliamentary Secretary should hide behind an argument about matters being confidential, I do not know. To cap it all, we had a speech from the hon. Member for Yeovil which did not contain a single argument against the Amendment. All that he could say was that the Amendment was stupid. I think that it is a good Amendment, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House Divided: Ayes 200, Noes 246.

Division No. 169.]
AYES
[5.48 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Ainsley, William
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Albu, Austen
Evans, Albert
Janner, Sir Barnett


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Finch, Harold
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fitch, Alan
Jeger, George


Awbery, Stan
Fletcher, Eric
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Beaney, Alan
Forman, J. C.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Benson, Sir George
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Blackburn, F.
Ginsburg, David
Kelley, Richard


Blyton, William
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Kenyon, Clifford


Boardman, H.
Greenwood, Anthony
Lawson, George


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Grey, Charles
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S. W.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bowles, Frank
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Boyden, James
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Lipton, Marcus


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gunter, Ray
Loughlin, Charles


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Lubbock, Eric


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
McCann, John


Callaghan, James
Hannan, William
McInnes, James


Chapman, Donald
Harper, Joseph
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Cliffe, Michael
Hart, Mrs. Judith
McLeavy, Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hayman, F. H.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Healey, Denis
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Darling, George
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Manuel, Archie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hilton, A. V
Mapp, Charles


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Holman, Percy
Marsh, Richard


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Holt, Arthur
Mason, Roy


Deer, George
Houghton, Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher


Dempsey, James
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Mellish, R. J.


Diamond, John
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mendelson, J. J.


Dodds, Norman
Hoy, James H.
Millan, Bruce


Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Milne, Edward


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mitchison, G. R.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Monslow, Walter


Edelman, Maurice
Hunter, A. E.
Moody, A. S.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Morris, John




Moyle, Arthur
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thornton, Ernest


Mulley, Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tomney, Frank


Neal, Harold
Robinson, Kenneth (St., N.)
Wade, Donald


Oliver, G. H.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Oram, A. E.
Ross, William
Warbey, William


Oswald, Thomas
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Watkins, Tudor


Owen, Will
Short, Edward
Weitzman, David


Padley, W. E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pargiter, G. A.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Whitlock, William


Parker, John
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wigg, George


Paton, John
Small, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Pavitt, Laurence
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Peart, Frederick
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Pentland, Norman
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Popplewell, Ernest
Stones, William
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Prentice, R. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Swain, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Probert, Arthur
Swingler, Stephen
Woof, Robert


Proctor, W. T.
Taverne, D.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Zilliacus, K.


Randall, Harry
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)



Rankin, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Reid, William
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Digby, Simon Wingfield
James, David


Aitken, W. T.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Allason, James
Doughty, Charles
Jennings, J. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Atkins, Humphrey
Duncan, Sir James
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Balniel, Lord
Eden, John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Barber, Anthony
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Barlow, Sir John
Emery, Peter
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Barter, John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kimball, Marcus


Batsford, Brian
Errington, Sir Eric
Kirk, Peter


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kitson, Timothy


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Farr, John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Berkeley, Humphry
Fell, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Finlay, Graeme
Leather, E. H. C.


Bidgood, John C.
Fisher, Nigel
Leavey, J. A.


Biffen, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bingham, R. M.
Freeth, Denzil
Lilley, F. J. P.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gammans, Lady
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Bishop, F. P.
Gardner, Edward
Litchfield, Capt. John


Black, Sir Cyril
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bossom, Clive
Gibson-Watt, David
Longbottom, Charles


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gilmour, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert


Box, Donald
Glover, Sir Douglas
Loveys, Walter H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Boyle, Sir Edward
Goodhart, Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Brewis, John
Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Stephen


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian


Brooman-White, R.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
McLaren, Martin


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Bryan, Paul
Green, Alan
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Buck, Antony
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)


Bullard, Denys
Gurden, Harold
McLean, Nell (Inverness)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Channon, H. P. G.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maddan, Martin


Chataway, Christopher
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maitland, Sir John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Cleaver, Leonard
Hay, John
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Cole, Norman
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Collard, Richard
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Mawby, Ray


Cooper, A. E.
Hiley, Joseph
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Costain, A. P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mills, Stratton


Coulson, Michael
Hirst, Geoffrey
Montgomery, Fergus


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hobson, Sir John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Critchley, Julian
Hocking, Philip N.
Morgan, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Holland, Philip
Morrison, John


Crowder, F. P.
Hopkins, Alan
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Cunningham, Knox
Hornby, R. P.
Nabarro, Gerald


Curran, Charles
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Noble, Michael


Dance, James
Hughes-Young, Michael
Nugent, Rt. Hon, Sir Richard


Deedes, W. F.
Jackson, John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie







Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Russell, Ronald
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Seymour, Leslie
Turner, Colin


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sharples, Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Shaw, M.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Shepherd, William
Vane, W. M. F.


Percival, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Peyton, John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Walker, Peter


Pitman, Sir James
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Pitt, Miss Edith
Speir, Rupert
Wall, Patrick


Pott, Percivall
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Ward, Dame Irene


Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Stevens, Geoffrey
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Prior, J. M. L.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Webster, David


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Storey, Sir Samuel
Whitelaw, William


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Studholme, Sir Henry
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Pym, Francis
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Ramsden, James
Tapsell, Peter
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Rawlinson, Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wise, A. R.


Rees, Hugh
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Woodnutt, Mark


Renton, David
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Woollam, John


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Worsley, Marcus


Rippon, Geoffrey
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)



Roots, William
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Tilney, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Mr. J E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel.

Clause 56.—(THE TRANSPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES.)

Mr. A. E. Cooper: I beg to move, in page 56, line 15, to leave out "or reduction".
This is a small point. The House is entitled to have the Minister's views on the interpretation of the words which it is proposed to delete. It would appear that the transport users' consultative committees are being given power to consider a proposal by the Railways Board when a railway service is to be discontinued from one station to another or on any one line. The committees do not, however, appear to be given any such power if a service is merely reduced.
What is the difference between a service which is discontinued and one which is simply reduced? It would seem that when there is a reduction in services, particularly in areas of considerable population, the users' consultative committee should be able to be consulted on the matter. I shall be glad to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford. South (Mr. Cooper) has put something of a conundrum to the House but at the same time has moved an Amendment. My first task must be to tell the House what the effect of the Amendment would be if it were made. It would empower the transport users'

consultative committees to consider any question relating to reductions of services whether it be in respect of passenger or freight services, upon representations being received from objectors, at the committee's own initiative, or on reference to the committee by the Minister. And they would have to give consideration to these matters under subsection (4) as part of the procedure whereby committees are still empowered to look at what we call "quality of service" questions.
At present the Clause, while it empowers the committees to consider quality of service questions, expressly debars them, by subsection (5), from considering charges or any question relating to the discontinuance or reduction of railway services, except as later subsections provide. Those later subsections relate to consideration of complete closures of railway passenger facilities, and that question in particular is dealt with by subsection (7).
Under the Bill, the position is that the transport users' consultative committees have the general oversight of any closures of passenger services which are made. The Railways Board has the power to reduce the frequency of either passenger or freight services, and it also has the power to close freight services completely without the Minister intervening, and those matters do not come before the consultative committee. All that is retained as the job of the consultative committee is, firstly, questions relating to quality of service, and,


secondly, railway passenger service closures under subsection (7).
Having regard to the general objective which the Government are aiming at in the Bill of conferring on the nationalised transport undertakings a wide degree of commercial freedom, I do not think that it would be right for us to place upon the Railways Board in particular any obstacle which would prevent it from reducing the services that it provides. No ordinary commercial undertaking is prevented from ceasing to provide for sale what it normally would wish to pro vide. The real reason why the railways in particular are in trouble is that people are deserting them and no longer using the services. I do not think therefore that we should place the Railways Board under a particular liability to have any reduction which it may make in its services—

ROYAL ASSENT

6.3 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. British Museum Act, 1962.
2. West Indies Act, 1962.
3. International Monetary Fund Act, 1962.
4. Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962.
5. Zinc Corporation Act, 1962.
6. Royal Holloway College Act, 1962.
7. Australian Agricultural Company Act, 1962.
8. Whitehaven Harbour Act, 1962.
9. Saint Paul, Covent Garden, Act, 1962.
10. Royal Russell School Act, 1962.

TRANSPORT BILL

Question again proposed, That "or reduction" stand part of the Bill.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Hay: When the House went to the other place I was saying that we could not take the view that it was desirable to confer upon the area transport

users' consultative committees the powers of overseeing reductions of service by, in particular, the Railways Board for the simple reason that the Board will be in no different position now that it is to have commercial freedom for any other transport undertaking.
After all, road haulage services and bus services which operate in competition with the railways are not being put under the handicap of having their activities and services reviewed by these committees, and I do not see any reason why if the Railways Board came to the conclusion for good commercial reasons and as a pure matter of management that its train services should be adjusted —that the number of trains run should be either increased or reduced—these are matters which ought to come within the purview of the consultative committees.
I have done my best to explain why we cannot accept the Amendment. I think that on reflection my hon. Friend and others who may have received points of view on this matter from a very distinguished body may themselves decide that this is not really a sensible Amendment to make. The whole point is that we want to give the railways commercial freedom, and the fewer controls that we have over their activities in these circumstances the better.

Mr. Cooper: In view of the very full nature of my hon. Friend's reply, which I hope will satisfy many people outside, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 58, line 9, at the end to insert:
(12A) Where for the purposes of subsection (9) of this section a committee decide to hear an objector orally, or to hear oral representations made on behalf of a Board, they shall hear the objector and the representations in public.

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the next one in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Hay: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
During the proceedings in the Standing Committee on 22nd March my right hon. Friend undertook, in response to suggestions made on both sides of the Committee in the discussion of an


Amendment moved originally by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), to consider what parts of the proceedings of consultative committees might be held in public. My right hon. Friend said—I think it was generally accepted on both sides of the Committee—that it would not be desirable to require a committee to hold the whole of its proceedings in public because, to use his words, this would make the procedure intolerable.
But since my right hon. Friend gave that undertaking he has consulted the chairmen of the area transport users' consultative committees, and the consensus of their views is that where a committee decides to hear oral representations in relation to a railway passenger closure either by an objector or on behalf of a board, they see no reason why this might not be done in public. Therefore, in the light of the views of the area chairmen, and after further consideration, we have drafted the new subsection (12A) in Clause 56 which will have the effect of requiring that where a committee decides to hear an objector orally or to hear oral representations which may be made by a board the hearing shall be in public.
I think that this meets the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) that not only must justice be done but that it must be seen to be done. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted by the House.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I strongly support the Amendment. It is important to bear in mind what is linked with this Clause, The Amendment relates to subsection (9), which provides the opportunity to objectors at public inquiries to put forward their objections before the appropriate committee. The grounds of their basic objections will be in relation to hardship, and I have little doubt that, in practice, these inquiries will become very like the town planning inquiries and that shortly some of us will have the opportunity to see how they work.
It is important that not only should they be in public but that the procedure —which lies in the hands of the Committees under subsection (13)—shall be in accordance with what has hitherto been laid down under Ministerial powers. We spent many days of anxious

debate on the Franks Committee's Report and subsequently on the admirable rules which followed, which have been very effective.
I want to see the same high standard from the Ministry of Transport and the Railways Board in future inquiries as has been set by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I am speaking to this Amendment for that reason. I am sure that it will be an important but not a difficult matter for the Minister, by administrative arrangement with the various consultative committees, to make sure that there is proper opportunity for fair hearing. That is what people want.
The case of the Ministry of Transport, of course, is slightly different from that of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. In inquiries conducted by the latter Ministry, any person opposing an application has to be a party affected by the proposal under examination. But in the case of the Ministry of Transport everybody in the nation is affected. The Minister obviously cannot accede to a request that every person should be entitled to an oral hearing, otherwise he might be held up in these inquiries for twelve months or more. Those with powerful objections might gang up together and there might be 1,200 or 1,500 objectors, which would hold up the administrative work of the Railways Board.
The Minister of Transport must make sure that the consultative committees work out a system to give fair hearings to genuine objectors. When objections are heard publicly, and it is found that local alternative road services are being provided to replace a discontinued line, hardship is something which can be thrashed out. If one locks behind closed doors what appears to be hardship, one creates a grievance. If one drags the issue into the open, that is avoided.
Many people who have come to object at Ministry of Housing and Local Government inquiries have gone away satisfied after hearing the evidence. I believe that that will happen at many of these branch lines inquiries. The hardship would be seen to be not as bad as people thought. I feel that we might have written in stronger safeguards, but I commend this Amendment if it is


coupled with sensitive administrative procedure. It may be that we could not go further than this in the case of the Ministry of Transport, which has different functions from those of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Hay: I speak again, by leave of the House, to welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), but I would not want (him or the House to think that the type of consideration of closure proposals which the consultative committees at present carry out, and which they will continue to carry out under the remodelled procedure provided by this Clause, is completely analogous to planning inquiries. There are certain similarities, but I would not want my hon. Friend to imagine that they are absolutely on all fours. Nor would I want him to push too far the request to the Minister of Transport to act as does the Minister of Housing and Local Government in relation to planning inquiries.
The matters before the consultative committees are not in the remotest degree judicial. Planning inquiries are at least quasi-judicial. Indeed, in many things, as my hon. Friend knows, they become almost entirely judicial. There is a difference here, however. I make this point so that there may be no misunderstanding. Otherwise, I am obliged for the support of my hon. Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 10, leave out from "to" to "every" and insert:
subsections (12) and (12A) of this section". —[Mr. Hay.]

Clause 58.—(RESTRICTIONS ON CARRIAGE BY ROAD IN LONDON.)

Mr. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 61 to leave out lines 15 to 23.
I must briefly give the background to this Amendment. It concerns the position of the London Transport Executive —as it is today—and the London Transport Board—as it will be under this Bill. When bus and underground transport in London was brought under public ownership in 1933, there was a provision that the body running it—which later became the London Transport

Executive—should be a monopoly in the sense that it would be able to have complete authority concerning the running of services in the London area, and that where it found that anybody who wanted to operate in the London area was competing with and damaging London transport services it would be able to invoke the veto.
That provision was essential because we had had in London a long history of pirate buses and of competition which did great damage to the transport services of the public. This monopoly situation was therefore proposed, and it was accepted by all parties. It has been operating ever since successfully and there has never been complaint about it.
The London Transport Executive has not been niggardly and dog-in-the-manger about this. When an operator has come along and proposed running a service in its area, and where that service has not damaged the existing service or seriously interfered with its finances, the Executive has given permission. There have been about two dozen cases where that has happened, according to the Parliamentary Secretary.
In this Bill, however, for the first time, the London Transport Executive's monopoly is taken away. No good reason has been given. The new Board will not be able to be master in its own house. It will not have the right to decide whether an outside operator should come into its territory. Any operator who comes along will, if permission to run a service in the London area is refused by the Board, be able to apply to the traffic commissioner. I do not know to what extent the Commissioner will have to take into account the overall injunction that the Board should make both ends meet and pay its way. He will consider the application. If the traffic commissioner says "No, the operator should not work in the London area," the operator can appeal to the Minister, and the Minister can override both the London Transport Board and the traffic commissioner and cam say that the operator can go into the London area.
6.30 p.m.
We suggest to the House that this is wholly undesirable, that it is wholly unnecessary, and that the position of the


London Transport Board—or Executive, as it has been for years past—has been wholly satisfactory, has given rise to no complaints and should not be changed. What are the reasons given by the Government for this change? They have given two reasons. They say that it may be that in certain areas outside London, the London Transport Board may want to operate, and that if it does, the traffic commissioner has to be consulted, and there is an appeal from the commissioner to the Minister, in a case in which the decision might be in favour of the Board. They say that if there is an appeal to the Minister from the traffic commissioner when the London Transport Board wants to operate outside London, the same sort of procedure should take place when a private operator wants to operate inside London.
I do not see that that follows a bit. I do not think there is anything in that argument, because the whole purpose of establishing the London Transport Board, with the special obligation put upon it, was that it is a monopoly and must be master in its own house. This is an obligation, which the Railways Board has not got, to run adequate services in London, and we are told that special provisions were put in because it is a monopoly, because the Railways Board is not in this special position, and the London Board should be master in its own house.
The other reason that we are told is that some operators on the fringe of London—private operators or others— might find it convenient and desirable to come over the border into the London area and operate there. The London Board might say, "This is wrong; we cannot accept it, because it will interfere with our normal services and will be upsetting," and will, therefore, turn it down. It has been suggested that the applicant should have the right of appeal to the traffic commissioner and from the traffic commissioner to the Minister.
We cannot see any reason for that at all. We know by experience that the London Board, whose sole purpose is to provide the best possible transport service for London, either themselves or by anybody else, have always acted sensibly when it has been found incon-

venient to provide services in a certain area and has allowed someone else to do it.
Why should it not do so? The London Board is not a private concern trying to make the maximum profit. Its purpose is to see that the people of London get the best possible transport service, and on many occasions it has willingly allowed outside operators to come into the London area.
These are the two reasons given by the Government for this break in the London Transport Executive's established position, which has existed since 1933 and which has operated exceedingly successfully and in regard to which we say that there is no reason for interference by the Government. We are frightened. The Minister may tell us, as he did in Committee, that it is not proposed to destroy the real strength of the London Transport Executive to allow private operators to come to London, but we do not know whether it will be so or not.
We do not know whether this Minister, or some other Minister with even a greater bias towards private enterprise operators than the present Minister has, might consider these cases and turn down both the traffic commissioner and the Transport Board so that these people can operate in London. They have always got a case, because one can always say that someone else can pick up some people better than others and provide a better service than there was before.
We are fearful lest the strength of the London Transport Board is—not undermined—but damaged by breaking the monopoly which has operated so well for such a long period, without as far as I know, any complaint, whether from any public body or responsible person. We feel very strongly about this. We feel strongly that the present situation should be maintained, and that there is no reason for altering it. In view of what we were told in Committee, we have very little hope that the Amendment will be accepted, but we intend to press it, because we think that it is of the greatest importance.

Mr. Hay: The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has addressed the House somewhat forcibly on this Amendment.

Mr. Strauss: I feel strongly about it.

Mr. Hay: The right hon. Gentleman says that he feels strongly about it, but he did not tell the House what the Amendment would do. His arguments were directed to an attack upon the whole idea of the Clause and the possibility of any kind of a right of appeal against the fiat of the London Transport Board whether or not a private operator could come into its territory. He has not told the House that the effect of the Amendment, and of the two consequential Amendments being discussed with it, would be simply to delete, at the end of the line, so to speak, the appeal from the traffic commissioner to the Minister. That is all we are concerned with in this Amendment.
As the right hon. Gentleman has said, Clause 58 (1), in effect, provides that before an operator, other than the London Board, can run a bus service in the London special area, which is the centre of London, he must have the consent of the London Board itself. I must remind the House that the consent which is in question here is not a permit to operate. It is merely a consent by the board to allow the operator to apply to the traffic commissioner for a licence. Let us assume that the London Board refuses this consent. Under this Clause, there is then an appeal against the refusal of consent to the traffic commissioner.
If the traffic commissioner turns down the applicant, there is a right of appeal, which the Amendment seeks to delete, to the Minister against the refusal of consent. If, at the end of the day, the Minister allows the appeal and grants the consent, then the operator has to start again. He then has to go to the traffic commissioner and has to prove need, and he has to go through the whole machinery of the licensing system, and may not then receive a road service licence.

Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if an applicant appeals from an adverse decision by the traffic commissioner to the Minister, and the Minister reverses the decision, the application to the traffic commissioner may again be turned down, although the Minister has rejected the decision of the commissioner?

Mr. Hay: It seems, perhaps, that the right hon. Gentleman has not fully understood the situation, and there may have been some misunderstanding throughout the whole discussion of this Clause. If so, I must clear it up.
The consent referred to in the Clause is merely a consent by the London Board which enables the operator to apply to the traffic commissioner for a road service licence. An appeal against the refusal of the traffic commissioner to grant a road service licence goes to the Transport Tribunal, so that it might well happen, to continue the example which I was just giving to the House, that the Minister may, on appeal, reverse the decision of the London Transport Board and give consent to the operator to apply to the traffic commissioner for a road service licence, and then, at the end of the day, when he has applied for a licence to the traffic commissioner, the operator might be refused. He appeals then to the Transport Tribunal, and may then be turned down once more. All this is perfectly feasible.
In the light of this explanation, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not feel quite so violently about this matter as they formerly did. All we are saying is that if an operator has a case which he wishes to deploy to the licensing authority, which is the traffic commissioner, for running a service inside the London special area, he should have the right to do so, provided that he can persuade, first, the traffic commissioner and then, on appeal, the Minister, that he should have the opportunity of putting his case. That is all that this Clause does and, in these circumstances, I feel that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are making altogether much too heavy weather of this matter. After all, by Clause 59 we are reproducing what is virtually the mirror image of the situation, as I described it in Committee, in respect of applications by the London Board to operate bus services outside its special area and in territory normally reserved to private operators.
So far as I can see, that is all that I need to say about the Amendment. I hope that it will not be pressed, because if it is we shall once more have to waste a certain amount of time marching


through the Lobbies. I hope that in the light of what I have said it will be possible for the Amendment to be withdrawn.

Mr. Strauss: I cannot understand what the Parliamentary Secretary is telling us. I think that he is misleading the House. Subsection (4), which we are moving to delete, says:
The applicant or the London Board may appeal to the Minister against the decision of the metropolitan traffic commissioner on an application … and on such an appeal the Minister may confirm, vary or annul the decision.
How can it possibly be that if an applicant applies to the traffic commissioner, and the commissioner's decision is reversed by the Minister, the applicant can go back to the commissioner and find himself exactly where he was? What is the use of an appeal to the Minister if his reversal of the commissioner's decision has no effect?

Mr. Hay: The position is as I explained. The Clause deals with the case in which the applicant wishes to operate in the London special area. Even under the existing law, the Transport Act, 1947, he has to obtain the consent of London Transport. That consent is a consent to enable him to apply for a road service licence. All we say in the Clause is that if London Transport refuses that consent, then there shall be a machinery of appeal and that at the end of the line will be the Minister. Having got to the end of the line, the applicant still has to get his road service licence in the same way that he would have to get it if he wanted to run a new service outside the London special area.

Mr. Strauss: He will get it automatically.

Mr. Hay: He will not get it automatically. That is what I keep telling the right hon. Gentleman.
I must stand in a white sheet and apologise to the House for saying that the final appeal in the case of a road service licence is through the Transport Tribunal. It is to the Minister. I was wrong about that and to that extent the right hon. Gentleman has a good point. There are two separate and distinct processes, one the procedure for obtaining consent and the other the procedure for obtaining a road service licence.

Mr. Norman Cole: Presuming the Minister's consent to lodge an application to the traffic commissioners, would it not still be open to the London Board to oppose that application?

Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The railways would probably oppose it. All sorts of people oppose applications for road service licences, people of whom one has never heard and who suddenly emerge and lodge objections. There is a complicated and difficult process to be gone through by any applicant for a road service licence.

Mr. Ede: This appears to be a game of snakes and ladders.

Mr. Hay: The right hon. Gentleman is a very good judge of that game.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill: —

The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 187.

Division No. 170.]
AYES
[6.44 p.m


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bishop, F. P.
Channon, H. P. G.


Aithen, W. T.
Bossom, Clive
Chataway, Christopher


Allasen, James
Bourne-Arton, A.
Chichester-Clark, R.


Arbuthnot, John
Box, Donald
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Boyle, Sir Edward
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Balniel, Lord
Braine, Bernard
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth W.)


Barlow, Sir John
Brewis, John
Cleaver, Leonard


Barter, John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Cole, Norman


Batstord, Brian
Brooman-White, R.
Collard, Richard


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cooper, A. E.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neil


Berkeley, Humphry
Bryan, Paul
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Buck, Antony
Costain, A. P.


Biffen, John
Bullard, Denys
Coulson, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Craddock, Sir Beresford


Bingham, R. M.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Critchley, Julian


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver




Crowder, F. P.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cunningham, Knox
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pym, Francis


Curran, Charles
Kerr, sir Hamilton
Ramsden, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Peter


Dance, James
Kirk, Peter
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Deedes, W. F.
Kitson, Timothy
Rees, Hugh


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Leather, E. H. C.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Doughty, Charles
Leavey, J. A.
Rippon, Geoffrey


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roots, William


du Cann, Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Duncan, Sir James
Lilley, F. J. P.
Russell, Ronald


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Litchfield, Capt. John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Eden, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Seymour, Leslie


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshal)
Longbottom, Charles
Sharples, Richard


Emery, Peter
Longden, Gilbert
Shaw, M.


Errington, Sir Eric
Loveys, Walter H.
Shepherd, William


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fell, Anthony
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Finlay, Graeme
McAdden, Stephen
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Fisher, Nigel
MacArthur, Ian
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Speir, Rupert


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Freeth, Denzil
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gammans, Lady
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gardner, Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Ian (Enfield, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gilmour, Sir John
Maltland, Sir John
Summers Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhew, Victor
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Gower, Raymond
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mills, Stratton
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morgan, William
Turner, Colin


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, John
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
van Straubenzee W. R.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nabarro, Gerald
Vane, W, M. F.


Harvey, Sir Arthur vere (Macclesf'd)
Heave, Alrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hay, John
Noble, Michael
Wade, Donald


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Walker, Peter


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wall, Patrick


Hiley, Joseph
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Webster, David


Hobson, Sir John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hocking, Philip N.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Whitelaw, William


Holland, Philip
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Holt, Arthur
Peel, John
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Percival, Ian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Peyton, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Wise, A. R.


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitman, Sir James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitt, Miss Edith
Woodhouse, C. M.


Jackson, John
Pott, Percivall
Woodnutt, Mark


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Woollam, John


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior, J. M. L.
Worsley, Marcus


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho



Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Boyden, James
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Ainsley, William
Braddock, Mrs. E, M.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Albu, Austen
Brockway, A. Fenner
Deer, George


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dempsey, James


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Diamond, John


Awbery, Stan
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dodds, Norman


Beaney, Alan
Callaghan, James
Driberg, Tom


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Chapman, Donald
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John


Benson, Sir George
Cliffe, Michael
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Blackburn, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Blyton, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Boardman, H.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Darling, George
Evans, Albert


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Finch, Harold


Bowles, Frank
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Fitch, Alan







Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
MacColl, James
Rogers, G. H. B. (Kensington, N.)


Forman, J. C.
McInnes, James
Ross, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
McLeavy, Frank
Short, Edward


Ginsburg, David
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Grey, Charles
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, Archie
Small, William


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mapp, Charles
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Gunter, Ray
Marsh, Richard
Sorensen, R. W.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mason, Roy
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mayhew, Christopher
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mellish, R. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hannan, William
Mendelson, J. J.
Stones, William


Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Milne, Edward
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Hayman, F. H.
Mitchlson, G. R.
Swain, Thomas


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Monslow, Walter
Swingler, Stephen


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Moody, A. S.
Taverne, D.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Morris, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hilton, A. V.
Moyle, Arthur
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Holman, Percy
Mulley, Frederick
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Houghton, Douglas
Neal, Harold
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Oliver, G. H.
Thornton, Ernest


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, A. E.
Tomney, Frank


Hoy, James H.
Oswald, Thomas
Wainwright, Edwin


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Will
Watkins, Tudor


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, W. E.
Weitzman, David


Hunter, A. E.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parker, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Paton, John
Whitlock, William


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilkins, W. A.


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Willey, Frederick


Jeger, George
Peart, Frederick
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, Norman
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Popplewell, Ernest
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Prentice, R. E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Probert, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt, Hon. A.


Kenyon, Clifford
Proctor, W. T.
Woof, Robert


Lawson, George
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Randall, Harry
Zilliacus, K,


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rankin, John



Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Reid, William



Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead.


McCann, John
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Clause 59.—(SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS ON GRANT TO LONDON BOARD OF ROAD SERVICE LICENCES.)

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 62, line 39, to leave out from "that" to the end of line 40 and to insert:
the relevant provisions of those subsections should not apply in relation to the proceedings specified in the certificate".
In many ways this Amendment relates to the situation that we have just been discussing in connection with the Amendment to Clause 58. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 59 set out the procedures under which the traffic commissioners will deal with applications from the London Board for road service licences for bus services outside the London Passenger Transport area.
Subsection (3), to which this Amendment relates, sets out the occasions when the procedures do not apply. Paragraph (c) exempts from the procedures those cases in which the Minister certi-

fies to the traffic commissioners that there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable that a licence should be granted, or that the conditions of a licence previously issued should be varied. It was intended that the exceptions under paragraph (c) should, amongst other things, cover the provisions of Clause 8 (1, c) which gives the board power to carry, with the consent of the Minister, beyond the 10-mile belt round the London Passenger Transport area boundary. Under the procedures of Clause 8 (1, c) the Minister can empower the board to operate bus services outside these limits, but only if he is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable for the Board to so operate.
The Minister's consent to the operation of these services is a prerequisite to the application for a licence. I must emphasise, as I explained in connection with the previous Amendment, that consent does not amount to an actual


authority to operate services. This has to be obtained through the normal road transport licensing machinery, and it is important that the Minister should not take away from the traffic commissioners their statutory discretion to grant or refuse a licence. But Clause 59 (3, c) as it stands imparts a somewhat wrong flavour because, by using the words
desirable that the licence should be granted
it could be read as fettering the discretion of the traffic commissioners. The Minister would not be just giving the board consent to apply for the licence; he would be giving a very broad hint to the commissioners that the Board ought to be given a licence regardless of what the commissioners might think are the merits of the case.
The purpose of the Amendment is primarily to substitute words which we consider to be more appropriate for these circumstances than those which I have quoted. There is no other change in this context, because the provisions will still exempt the London Board from the special procedures outlined in the earlier part of Clause 59. The board will still require the Minister's consent to apply for a licence, and discretion to grant or refuse a licence remains with the traffic commissioners.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 62.—(TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF LIABILITY TO MAINTAIN INLAND WATERWAYS.)

Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 64, line 34, after "waterway", to insert:
or part of an inland waterway which was not".

Mr. Speaker: I imagine that it will be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the next two Amendments, in line 35 and line 41.

Mr. Hay: I gave the sort of explanation that I ought to give on this Amendment, which relates to the moratorium on actions against the Inland Waterways Authority, I should be bound to go beyond seven o'clock, at which time the Third Reading of the Bill is due to start.
I think that the words of the Amendment are self-explanatory. They are intended to deal with the situation which would otherwise arise where the right of navigation against which the moratorium

is intended to operate could be applied to a very small vessel instead of to a very large one. What we have in mind is that the Inland Waterways Authority should be protected against actions claiming the right to navigate on canals as a result of an attempt to navigate by a very small craft such as a canoe. If the Amendment were not made, the Authority would be obliged to restore canals to navigation by very large vessels indeed.
That is briefly the effect of this and the other two Amendments. I am sorry that I must give the House an extremely brief explanation. It is one which I am sure does not commend itself to the House, but I must, none the less, commend the Amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

It being Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to the remaining part of the Bill.

Further Amendments made: In page 64, line 35, leave out from beginning to "time" in line 39, and insert "at any".

In line 41, at end insert:
; and, in any proceedings against the Commission or the Inland Waterways Authority which are brought for that purpose before the end of the year nineteen hundred and sixty-seven as respects an inland waterway or part of an inland waterway which was to any degree navigable in the said period of six months, the defendants shall not be required to secure its maintenance in a condition which is, in matters affecting navigation, better than it was in at any time in that period, but if there has been any deterioration since the end of that period the court may, if satisfied that it is in the interests of navigation, require the defendants to secure its maintenance in the condition in which it was at any time in the said period".

In page 65, line 11, at end insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not prevent the court from awarding any sum in respect of defects in the inland waterway if it is shown that it was without any of those defects at some time in the period of six months ending on the second day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one.

In page 66, line 7, at beginning insert:
This section shall not affect section eighteen of the British Transport Commission Act, 1956 (which imposes certain liabilities as respects the Kennet Waterways), but".

In line 7, leave out from "of" to "and" in line 8 and insert "that Act". —[Mr. Marples.]

Clause 74.—(COMMISSION'S POWER TO DEVELOP LAND.)

Amendments made: In page 81, line 19, leave out from "that" to "it" in line 21.

In line 23, leave out "that Act" and insert "the Transport Act, 1947".

In page 81, leave out lines 26 to 32.— [Mr. Marples.]

Clause 75.—(THE COMMISSION'S SUBSIDIARIES.)

Amendments made: In page 81, line 37, leave out from beginning to "sections" and insert "Notwithstanding anything in".

In line 39, leave out from "1956" to "the".

In line 44, at end insert:
(2) If as a result of a transfer of securities effected by the Commission at a time when the Commission hold carriers' licences for vehicles owned by a subsidiary, the subsidiary becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary of a company (hereinafter referred to as "the company") which is itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Commission—

(a) any such licence for a vehicle then owned by the subsidiary shall thereafter have effect as if granted to the company;
(b) for the purposes of section one hundred and eighty of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 (which relates to carriers' licences for the vehicles of a subsidiary), the company shall be deemed to have made the application for the licence and to have signified to the licensing authority their desire that the section should have effect as respects the subsidiary; and
(c) subsection (8) of section five of the Transport Act, 1953 (which relates to the duration of carriers' licences for vehicles owned by a company all the securities of which are disposed of under that section), shall not apply in relation to the transfer.

(3) It is hereby declared that if an application is made before the vesting date for the issue of a licence in substitution for an existing licence which is due to expire on the vesting date by virtue of subsection (4) of section two of the Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Act, 1956 (which relates to carriers' licences for vehicles owned by certain subsidiaries of the Commission and provides that they shall expire on the date when the subsidiary ceases to be under direct or indirect control of the Commission), and on the vesting date proceedings are pending before the licensing authority on that application, the existing licence will under subsection (3) of section one hundred and sixty-nine of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, continue in force until the application is disposed of.

In page 82, line 12, at end insert:
(4) In this section "carriers' licence" means a licence under Part IV of the Road Traffic

Act, 1960 (including one issued in pursuance of Part II of the First Schedule to the Transport Act, 1953).—[Mr. Marples.]

Clause 82.—(DISQUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF COMMONS.)

Amendments made: In page 88, line 7, leave out "incorporated in pursuance of" and insert "referred to in".

In line 16, leave out from first "Company" to "the" in line 17 and insert "referred to in".

In line 18, leave out from "the" to end of line 20 and insert:
following companies, that is to say—

Caledonian Steam Packet Company (Irish Services) Limited.
Railway Sites Limited.
British Road Services Limited.
B.R.S. (Parcels) Limited.
B.R.S. (Pickfords) Limited.
Atlantic Steam Navigation Company Limited.

First Schedule.—(THE BOARDS, THE REGIONAL RAILWAY BOARDS AND THE HOLDING COMPANY.)

Amendments made: In page 98, leave out lines 10 to 16 and insert:
(1) The Holding Company may act notwithstanding a vacancy among the directors.

In page 98, line 17, leave out from second "the" to end of line 21 and insert:
procedure of the Holding Company, including the quorum at meetings of the Holding Company".

In line 24, at end insert:
(3) If and so far as the procedure of the Holding Company is not regulated by an order under the last foregoing sub-paragraph, it shall be such as the Holding Company may determine.

In line 34, at end insert:
(4) Every document purporting to be an instrument issued by the Holding Company and to be sealed as aforesaid, or to be signed on behalf of the Holding Company, shall be received in evidence and be deemed to be such an instrument without further proof unless the contrary is shown.—[Mr. Marples.]

Second Schedule.—(TRANSFER OF COMMISSION'S STATUTORY FUNCTIONS.)

Amendment made: In page 101, leave out lines 9 to 15.—[Mr. Marples.]

Seventh Schedule,—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Amendment made: In page 118, line 46, after "(11)", insert "and (12A)".— [Mr. Marples.]

Eleventh Schedule.—(REPEALS.)

Amendments made: In page 136, line 41, column 3, leave out "Sections one to eleven".

In page 136, leave out lines 45 to 47.

In page 140, line 34, at end insert:


"4 &amp; 5 Eliz. 2. c. 56.
The Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Act, 1956.
The whole Act."

In line 51, at end insert:


"8 &amp; 9 Eliz. 2. c. 16.
The Road Traffic Act, 1960.
In the Seventeenth Schedule, the amendments of the Transport Act, 1947, and of the Transport Act, 1953."

—[Mr. Marples.]

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Marples: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have come to the end of a rather long road. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will agree that the Bill has emerged as a carefully thought out Measure on which there has been a wide degree of consultation. At any rate, they will probably agree that the White Paper, which first announced the Government's intentions, was published as far back as December, 1960. Vesting day under the Bill is January, 1963, which means that we have given an immense amount of time to our consideration of this Measure, which is an important one.
The Government will wish to introduce some Amendments in another place. For instance, we shall seek to change the name of the Inland Waterways Authority. That would have taken about fifty minutes on the Floor of the House, and we thought that if this was dealt with in another place it would save time.
I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the care and attention which they have given to the Bill, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. We have debated in full matters of principle and detail. I do not wish to be controversial and to discuss the timetable Motion, because very little has not been discussed in Committee. We had one session in hand when we finished, which means that it could not have been such a severe Guillotine.
Although some changes have been made the principles contained in the Bill are still practically the same as mentioned in the White Paper. They are three in number.

Mr. Spriggs: The Minister has said that we discussed the Bill in full. But we did not. Many Clauses were not discussed, because of the Guillotine.

Mr. Marples: I did not wish to be controversial, because it is not my nature. I am being provoked into being controversial by the intervention of the hon. Member, when I wish to be peaceful. This is an intolerable situation for a pacific Minister.

Mr. Spriggs: Let us have the truth.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member has asked for the truth. The Bill has 91 Clauses and 11 Schedules, making a total of 102. The 1947 Act had 127 Clauses and 13 Schedules, making a total of 140. In other words, the 1947 Act was one-third larger than this one. We have had 35 Committee meetings on this Bill, whereas we had 31 on the 1947 Measure. I did not wish to say all this, and I am only doing so in deference to the wishes of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs). The number of hours spent in discussing this Bill in Committee was 95, whereas there were 76 hours of discussion on the 1947 Measure. That means that we have spent 25 per cent. more time on this Bill, although it has fewer Clauses and Schedules.
The number of Amendments guillotined and not selected in this Bill was 62, whereas it was 279 in 1947, which means that four and a half times as many Amendments were guillotined or not selected in 1947. The number of Clauses not discussed amounted to seven, whereas the total was 35, and seven Schedules, on the 1947 Measure. It was only the provocation of the hon. Member which caused me to give these figures. I was trying to be as favourable as I could to the Socialist Government of 1945, but I have not been allowed to do so. I ask my hon. Friends to acquit me of any responsibility for this digression. It was forced on me.

Mr. Spriggs: Now get on with the Bill.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member has told me to get on with the Bill. I would have done so in the first place if he had not interrupted me. There are three principles in the Bill, and they were all set out in the White Paper. First, each undertaking must have a clearly defined task within a set field. From this follows the second principle, that each undertaking must have a proper financial structure and be vested with its own assets and be responsible for its own capital debt and financial performance. Thirdly, each undertaking must, as far as possible, be freed from outdated statutory restrictions, such as common carrier liabilities, and be given greater commercial freedom.
In spite of all the debates that we have had neither the Government nor their supporters have been shaken into changing their views on one cardinal point. The British Transport Commission was too big. It was running not only the railways but a wide variety of other undertakings and its task was too large to be performed by any single undertaking. That was the cardinal factor.

Mr. Spriggs: Who decided that?

Mr. Marples: The Government of the day decided, after prolonged consideration. I am certain that if they are not careful, hon. Members opposite will make the fatal mistake of thinking that size, by itself, is a virtue. That is not necessarily so. If an organisation gets too large, one does not get efficiency.

Mr. Jack Jones: What about I.C.I.?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones)—who knows so much about the steel industry —asks, "What about I.C.I.?" I.C.I. would be lost in this organisation, which is much bigger in every respect. I.C.I. is nothing like as large as this organisation, which employs over half-a-million people. So far as I can gather it is the biggest single undertaking in the world, including America. It is too big. That was the basic mistake. We have tried to alter that and I am sure that in our endeavour we carry with us the hon. Member for Rotherham.
There is a deep cleavage of views between the two sides of the House. The

Government have tried to be practical. We have adopted an empirical approach. The idea of four statutory boards and a Holding Company has received a wide measure of support. For the first time since 1948 there will be a body which, in the words of the Select Committee, on which there were representatives of the parties on both sides of the House—I do not think that included a representative of the Liberal Party—but at any rate, in the words of the Select Committee it has the single minded task of running the railways.
In my view the task of running the railways is about the most difficult job anybody can have in this country. We all ought to be sympathetic rather than critical of those who are trying to do it. On the financial reorganisation we have written off a great deal of the debt for obsolete railway assets, and that had support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. But I must remind hon. Members that although the debts are written off, the taxpayers will still have to find the cost of servicing the debt and will have to bear the burden. It has been shifted from the railways to the shoulders of the taxpayers. Therefore, in spite of what has been written off, which represents a huge amount by any standards, we must not under-rats the difficult task confronting the Railways Board and the Waterways Authority if they are to achieve financial viability in five years. It will be necessary to review the financial position as the situation develops.
I turn now to the problem of commercial freedom about which there has been a great deal of discussion. It is fundamental to reorganisation. Fears have been expressed about the removal of control over railway fares outside the London area. Within the London area certain machinery is to be kept in being, but outside there is not this machinery. I think that those running the railways will use good sense in this respect. We have to make up our minds that it is not the British Transport Commission nor will it be the Railways Board, as it will exist in future, which is responsible for closing railways. The people who decide to close railways are those customers who decide that they do not want to use the railways any longer.
Recently, I met a deputation from South Wales on the subject of railways being closed. There the railways were carrying 7 per cent. of the passenger traffic and 93 per cent. went by road. Many years ago the proportions were reversed. If only 7 per cent. is now carried by rail, it is pretty clear that the customers' preference is not for railways but for some other form of transport. I do not blame the customers for that. But I do not think that they can choose some other form of transport—scooter, private car, or bus—and still say, "You must keep going a form of transport to which I do not now wish to subscribe."

Mr. S. O. Davies: The Minister has mentioned my country. Will he not admit that the British Transport Commission contributed substantially to the fact that these railways have lost money? Nothing whatever has been done to bring the railways up to date. They are precisely the same railways as were being operated 60, 70 or 80 years ago. Nothing has been done to modernise them.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) is quite right. If conditions were the same today as they were 60, 70 or 80 years ago, these railways would be making huge profits because there would be no alternative form of transport. But there has been a technical change in the methods of transport. The mass transport of the nineteenth century, when a thousand people went in a train from one fixed point to another fixed point at a given time, has been replaced by a situation in Which there is individual transport from one mobile point to another mobile point at any time. That is a cardinal difference. Under the conditions which obtained sixty and seventy years ago, railways were bound to succeed. But they cannot succeed now because of the competition. I think that outside London, with the transport users' consultative committees, and inside London, with the new procedure, we shall find that there are adequate safeguards for the traveling public.
During our debates upon this Bill a number of controversial points have been raised and one of the most controversial concerns coastal shipping. I

should like now to say a few words about coastal shipping, confining myself, as I must, to what is within the Bill. I should like to say something about matters which are not in the Bill, but to do so would be out of order.
I have given a great deal of thought to this difficult problem, as have my two Parliamentary Secretaries and the officials in my Department. Throughout I have had special regard to the user and to the taxpayer. I have discussed this at innumerable meetings with the Commission and with representatives of the coastal shipping interests. I have tried to hold the balance between the railways on the one hand and coastal shipping on the other. That is my responsibility as Minister. The position of the railways is no longer what it was. The competition from the roads entitles them to a greater freedom in respect of charges than is allowed under the present arrangements. On the other hand, coastal shipowners fear two possibilities. First, that on long hauls—for example, if coal is being brought from Newcastle to London or to Bristol—the railways will use the Government subsidy which they are getting to undercut the coastal shippers and take business from them. That is a quite justifiable complaint and one which merits great attention.
The second fear of the coastal shipowners is that on short hauls the railways will raise their charges. For example, if a pit is producing coal which has to be taken by rail five miles to a port, in order to be conveyed by coastal shipping, the shipowners fear that the railways will raise their charges to an extremely high level and put the coastal shipping people out of business.
During the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained that I was having discussions about this whole problem. I hope that the many discussions which took place, and which led to a Government Amendment to Clause 53, will go a considerable way to allay the fears of the coastal shipowners. The effect of the Amendment is to provide protection for coastal shipping from railway competition in two ways, in relation to long hauls and short hauls. The charges for long hauls, to which I must apply myself as Minister if complaints are received, are such as appear to the Minister to be inadequate


having regard to the full cost of affording the service or services for which they are made, and which are made while the railways are in receipt of grants to meet a deficit on revenue account. In other words, for long hauls the railways have to quote a figure which is adequate, having regard to the full cost of affording the service. In defining that criteria by which railway charges should be judged we have accepted the form of words desired by the shipping industry and contained in the Amendment.

Mr. Bruce Millan: The Amendment to which the Minister is referring was guillotined yesterday and we did not discuss it. There is quite a difference between the Bill as it is drafted and what the Minister said during the Committee stage discussions. He said that it would be required that railways would not recover the direct cost but would make a significant contribution to the indirect cost. Why has the Minister introduced these quite different words which place a far more onerous obligation on the railways? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that more fully?

Mr. Marples: I discussed this with a leading firm of chartered accountants which looked at the figures of the Transport Commission. I also discussed it with the coastal shipping interests which stated that they preferred this form of words and, therefore, as the accountants advised me that this was reasonable and fair—providing that this criterion should be applied not only to the long haul but to the short haul—I was prepared to accept it. After all, if it is fair on the long haul for the railways to charge what is called the "full cost" it is fair on the short haul, too. For that reason I was prepared to accept it, as long as the principle applies to both the long and the short hauls and, I might add, the medium hauls as well. For those reasons, I accepted the wording which the coastal shipping industry thought was desirable to protect its interests.

Mr. Charles Mapp: It is important to get this clear. In Committee we understood the Minister to mean, if he did not use the actual words, that something beyond the direct costs—a noticeable or important contribution to the indirect costs—would be

involved, but that the present words "revenue account" mean considerably more. I understand that "revenue account" will include not only the revenue receipts but the whole of the central charges, including profits and subsidies. This is a significant difference.

Mr. Marples: I should be out of order if I went over everything that was said in Committee, but the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said in Committee that he thought it should be the full cost. By the Amendment I have got the B.T.C. and the coastal shippers to agree—and I thought that I had done a brilliant job, but, from the remarks that have been made so far, it appears that I did not do as well as I had thought.
Therefore, regarding charges on short hauls I must consider those which appear to be excessive, having regard to the full cost of offering the service. Regarding the short haul—and this is a significant point which appears to have escaped many people, including most of the Press—that provision remains in force after the railways have ceased to be in receipt of a grant to meet the deficit on revenue account Thus, on the short haul, the protection remains, even though the railways are not in deficit.
I want to explain how I propose to deal with this matter during my tenure of office as Minister. I do not know how long that will be but I think it will be for a long time.

Mr. Jack Jones: A short haul.

Mr. Marples: When complaints are made I propose to appoint an accountant of very high standing to investigate impartially and then to report to me. The railway costs in relation to the charges proposed would be analysed by him before his report was made. It will be like an inspector of taxes considering a company's affairs who will always want an auditor's certificate. I will want one in this case.

Mr. Popplewell: Mr. Popplewell rose—

Mr. Marples: Only three and a half hours remain for the Third Reading debate, and if I keep giving way I will be cutting down the time during which other hon. Members will be able to speak.

Mr. Popplewell: I admit that the Minister is on a good point in trying to adjust the charges between coastal shipping and the railways, but has he considered road haulage? Has any approach been made to the Road Haulage Association in an effort to get reasonable rates to prevent unnecessary competition?

Mr. Marples: No.

Mr. Popplewell: Why?

Mr. Marples: I did not want to. We believe in an entirely different philosophy. We believe that the consumer should decide the way by which he wishes to send his goods—whether by road, rail or sea. The consumer must assess which one is to his advantage and I prefer to allow the customer to be free to make his own assessment and choose which method he prefers. I do not wish to be a dictator like some hon. Gentlemen opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] That is the last thing I want to be. Therefore. I hope that we have met the coastal shipping point of view.
On many occasions hon. Members have raised the question of the powers of manufacture, particularly of the Holding Company. My noble Friend Lord Mills said in the House of Lords on 7th November, 1960, that there was no intention that the Bill should be a denationalisation Bill. This is not a Bill to denationalise what is already there. It is to reorganise—we have said this from the beginning—the main function of British Railways—its structure —and to concentrate management on the railways. We alter the organisation but not the national ownership. As I say, it is not a denationalisation Measure.
Of course, there are powers in the Bill, as in previous Measures, to direct. There is no specific provision to dispose of any particular asset and no such direction is written into the Bill. It is primarily a matter for management.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) made a quiet, sensible and reasonable speech which was empiric in its approach. He mentioned three companies which have been the subject of some controversy—Star Bodies (B.T.C.) Limited, Bristol Commercial Vehicles Limited and Eastern Coach Works Limited. I can inform

my hon. Friend that there is nothing to prevent them from being sold off nor to force them to be sold off in the Bill. I think that the test is this: is what these companies are doing the main purpose and duty of a board or is it ancillary to it? If it is the main duty then we have no intention of selling them off, but if it is ancillary we have the right to do so. That is reasonable enough in all conscience because the main purpose of these transport undertakings should not be disturbed.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: What will be the position if they are complementary to the boards?

Mr. Marples: If it is a major part of a board, that is one thing, but if it is ancillary, then that is another. The business of the Holding Company is to administer and control, but there is no need for the Holding Company's group to develop manufacturing activities either for purposes of its own activities or for sale generally. These three companies engaged in the manufacture of road motor bodies and chassis are, therefore, in this sense, anomalies, but to prohibit them from manufacturing would destroy their purpose and seriously affect the value of the public investment in them.
They must, therefore, be allowed to continue on more or less their present scale. In fact, we have allowed those activities to be free, by use of the Minister's discretion, instead of by fixing a limitation on them. They do not need to sell outside the nationalised transport field. In fact, they cannot do so under the Commission's present structure, and the Amendment to Clause 29 does no more than continue this restriction.
There is no need, on grounds of public policy, to keep these three companies in national ownership if an acceptable price is offered for them. Indeed, if a good offer is received I should be ready to see them disposed of. There is no purpose in saying that an offer which was at a knock-out price would be accepted, because it would not be. Any offer I would accept would have to be examined by an independent firm of accountants. If an offer were received and it was for £½ million more than the accountant thought it was worth, I would think that it should be accepted


On the other hand, if the offer were £½ million less, I should say that it should not be accepted.
I distinguish between the main purpose and duty of the Board and what is ancillary to it. I think that manufacturing is ancillary to the running of our transport system and I hope, therefore, that I have made the position clear. I can inform the hon. Member for Lowestoft that more than the price would have to be considered if a satisfactory offer were received. The terms of employment, continuity of business, and so on, would have to be taken into account.

Mr. Popplewell: The right hon. Gentleman is offering them three times what he offered road haulage.

Mr. Marples: No, there is going to be no forced sale about this.
On the question of the transport users' consultative committees, we have tried to clarify the procedure so that those committees consider the hardship that is caused to passengers. When they are considering hardship I am particularly anxious that they should at the same time consider alternative methods of transport. They may consider that extra buses or larger buses or different types would be suitable. These Amendments —we made some to the inland waterways and pipe-lines provisions—do not vitiate the principle of giving commercial freedom to the undertakings.
There are a number of people to whom I should like to express my gratitude. First, I should like to thank the Chairman of the Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Sir S. Storey). I think that Stretford is a wonderful place. I was brought up there. I am sure that we were all grateful to him for the way in which he conducted the Committee proceedings.
I should also like to thank the right hon. Member for Vauxhall because Whenever he was under great provocation he never lost his temper once, though I nearly lost mine several times. I am grateful to him for the reasoned way in which he brought forward all the points he had in mind. We must remember that there is a deep cleavage in principle between the two sides of the House on this matter, and, considering that deep cleavage, it is remarkable that

tempers were as even as they are in the House.
I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I had read Lord Attlee's book on delegation by Ministers to their Parliamentary Secretaries. I took it to heart; I delegated to my hon. Friend a good deal, and he has been well worthy of that delegated power. He has been sorely tried at times, but he, too, kept his temper. He keeps the temperature down whereas I sometimes tend to raise it. The one function that I cannot be expected to delegate to him is the raising of temperature, because by nature I seem to be well fitted to do that anyway.
Now I come to the final word that I should like to say about the future of the railways. When I first became Minister of Transport I hoped—it was a vain hope—that, as has often been said by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), we should stop using the railways as a political shuttlecock. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is exactly what happens whenever one mentions it. I have given up that hope now. But it is not really a political problem. It is a technical and social problem. Indeed, several new factors have crept in. First, there are new competitors. There are road and air travel. What about air travel from London to Glasgow and Edinburgh? They make an immense difference to the future of the railways. On social grounds people have decided that they want cars or scooters. They have opted for cars or scooters. They may be right or they may be wrong.
The third factor is that it is going to be a shrinking business, and therefore it is going to be difficult. It is easy enough to manage an expanding business —it is too easy for words—but when it is bound to contract it is difficult. It is contracting because of its competitors. At the same time, let us face the facts of life. The railways must find their true rôle in this country. They have a future, but it is not the future they thought it was 20 or 30 years ago. It is a different future.
We have got to get the right size and shape, and the quicker we get that size and shape and get the suitable traffic to carry, the better it will be. Until we do, it is no good thinking that an organisation structure by itself will make it pay. It will not pay unless we have the


men to manage and work it. If we can get the right sized shape and structure, and modernise it we shall have fewer men employed in it looking after those who are redundant.
I have paid special attention to that; and I am certain that we have got to get the right management. We have a difficult task—the most difficult in the country—but I think we shall get the right leadership.
I shall do my best to make the industry pay. I know that I shall be criticised, whatever I do, but I say in all sincerity that I shall do my best. I can promise the House that. The difficulties are simply enormous, but that is no reason why they should not be tackled.
In that spirit, I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Strauss: I endorse the tributes paid by the Minister of Transport to various Members. I am excluding myself, of course. He was quite right to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford (Sir S. Storey), who was Chairman of the Standing Committee, and to the Parliamentary Secretary, who certainly kept his temper throughout the proceedings and whose general behaviour was most acceptable to both sides of the Committee. I believe that the Minister of Transport would have done the same if he had been there. But he was there so seldom that it was not difficult for him to keep his temper.
Before I proceed to deal with the various points which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, I want to pick out one thing which he said, as otherwise I may forget it. I refer to the alarming comments that he made about the prospects of these three vehicle-building companies which we discussed earlier in the day. It is clear from what he said —we were not told this when we were discussing the Amendments—that it is the desire of the Minister to sell these companies if possible. His only interest is to ensure that they go to the highest bidder.
Therefore, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and others who are interested must realise that the Government are continuing their Conserva-

tive policy, and that just as they sold off the profitable road haulage section, or as much of it as they could, they are now going further as a result of the pressure which we know has been put upon the Minister, particularly by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), and are determined to sell off these three very successful and profitable small companies as soon as possible to the highest bidder.
I emphasise that fact at the beginning of my remarks as it shows how Tory policy is continuing in connection with the transport problem. The Minister talks about ignoring politics and dealing with these problems purely factually, jammed in between highly political statements based on Conservative philosophy. We cannot accept the suggestion that he or anybody else can consider the transport policies of the country devoid of political ideas. It cannot be done. We do not pretend it is possible, but the Minister does.
The Bill emerges from its Committee and Report stages practically unaltered. It is as bad today as it was when we first saw it. There were very large numbers of Amendments on the Notice Paper on Report, and some hon. Members might have come to the conclusion that they were concessions to requests made by the Opposition in Committee and that the Government were meeting us. Nothing of the sort. They were merely examples of the inefficient drafting of the Bill which the Government have now put right. The Government have given practically no concessions to us as a result of our long and arduous discussions in Committee. The Bill today is exactly the same as it was when we first saw it.
What does the Bill propose to do? The Minister has outlined the three essential proposals which are embodied in the Bill and which represent the Government's transport policy. The central factor is that the railways are losing substantial sums of money—£150 million a year—and it is that which has driven the Government to seek to rectify that state of affairs. We do not blame the Government for doing so. The problem we have to consider is whether the steps that the Government propose will be effective and what damage to the


nation will be done by permitting commercial freedom and all that it implies to the railways.
The Government are tackling this problem in three ways. First, by breaking up the existing structure of publicly-owned British transport into various elements on the ground that the Transport Commission, as it is, has too heavy a task. We have never quarrelled with that statement. What we say is that abolishing the executives which had the separate tasks, as the Conservative Government did in 1953, and putting all the executives into the Transport Commission was an error. If the Transport Commission today has too large a responsibility that is the fault of the Conservative Party, and it could easily have been remedied without the complete disintegration on which the Government are now embarked.
We believe that this aspect of Government policy, the breaking up the Transport Commission, will do an ill service to transport and an ill service to the nation. We have not had any argument from the Minister or from anybody else as to how the breaking up the transport services into a number of separate watertight compartments, loosely integrated by an Advisory Council, which is going to meet now and again, will be in the interest of any transport service or of the public. I would have thought that it was obvious to everyone with a knowledge of transport that we needed a high degree of co-ordination and integration, We cannot see how the proposed disintegration can possibly do any good; and it certainly cannot improve the finances of the railways.
The Government's other proposal— and it is a very important one—is the financial reorganisation. The Government, here, are doing what we think to be right. They are taking a realistic view of the situation. We have been advocating something of that sort for a considerable time and we have no quarrel at all with the proposals that the Government have put forward. But we give this warning. At present, the working loss of the railways is about £90 million a year and interest charges are about £50 million, making altogether about £140 million. The interest charges

will grow, and in the next five years they will be £50 million higher. So in five years' time the deficit is likely to be about £190 million a year.
Anyone who believes that it is possible for the railways, however much fares are raised and expenses cut, to make up that deficit in five years' time is living in a dream world. I repeat what I said at an earlier stage, that the problem for the Government and the country today is not to try completely to eliminate railway losses. That just cannot be done, any more than in most of Europe and a large part of America. The problem, with the national interest as a whole in mind, is to what extent the losses can be properly cut down, to what extent this burden can be borne by the rail traveller, and what proportion should be paid by the State. That some proportion will have to be borne by the State is certain.
The other thing—and this is really the most important thing that the Government are proposing to do in trying to reduce the serious losses falling on the railways—is giving the railways what they call commercial freedom. What does that mean? Commercial freedom to do what? In fact, it means commercial freedom to cut down the railway services on a scale hitherto never contemplated, doing great damage to a very large section of the community and putting up fares right and left wherever it is possible; in short, eliminating completely all pretence of public service from the country's railway system.
The Government have admitted that. The Minister, in yesterday's debate, said that the railways "could no longer be regarded as a milch cow torn between considerations of public service and profitability." What he meant by that is that profitability is the only thing that will matter in the future. Public service is to be eliminated. All the people living in constituencies such as that of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) will suffer very much as a consequence.

Dame Irene Ward: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me saying so, I do not intend to give up the fight.

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Lady never gives up any fight. She has never been known to do so.
I was telling her that damage to her constituents will arise from the fact that the directive of the Government to Dr. Beeching is, "Be quite ruthless. Run only those services which are profitable. Public service does not matter at all— only profitability." If we accept that point of view, which the Government have accepted, it will be very serious for the nation's needs.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Will the hon. Lady vote against the Bill?

Mr. Strauss: My hon. Friend says that he hopes that the hon. Lady, in view of her militant attitude, will vote against a Bill which will lead to the closing of many of the services in her area.

Dame Irene Ward: Dame Irene Ward indicated dissent.

Hon. Members: Running away.

Mr. Strauss: It would not be the first time that the hon. Lady had revolted against the policy of the Government and voted with us against them.
The Government say that unprofitable services have to be eliminated. To do that they propose various remedies. It is entirely wrong to suggest as the Minister did, that in any transport service, whether public or private, the idea of public service is absent. It is not. When a bus operator gets a licence from the traffic commissioners they insist that he should run some services in unprofitable areas, which is a public service, as a condition to being allowed to run in profitable areas. That is really acknowledging that anyone who runs a transport service is willingly running it, or is forced to run some part of it as a public service. We see no reason why the railways should be the one exception.
One of the ways in which the Government hope that the railways will pay is, of course, by putting up fares as rapidly and as much as the traffic will bear. It will not bear very much on freight. We know that when freight charges are put up to any significant extent the traffic drops and there is a net fall in revenue, so there is not much scope there. We can raise all passenger

fares sharply, but as we put them up fewer people travel on the railways. The railways may gain something in revenue, but they will lose in passengers. We were told that the recent rise in fares imposed by Dr. Beeching meant that if everybody continued to travel on the railways the revenue would be increased by £12 million a year, but as many would go by road instead it would rise by only £9 million. Many people who used the railway services before will in future use the roads.
The point that I want to make is this. When the Government operate their railway policy, either by closing services or putting up fares, what they ought to do, and do not do, is to look at the picture as a whole and the broad national consequences. One of the national consequences of putting up fares is that people such as commuters, and a large number of others, go on to the roads instead. The roads become congested. There is a demand, which becomes insistent, that road improvements should be made and that urban highways should be built, often at the cost of considerable destruction of amenity.
There is an enormous financial cost as a result of diverting large numbers of people from the railways to the roads, and there is a great social cost in the waste of time of those who suffer delay as a result of traffic congestion on their way to work. That is an aspect of the Government's policy which should be considered. What will be the effect on the roads? What will be the demand for building new roads and widening existing ones which will inevitably follow if railway fares are raised to any considerable extent?
The Minister says that the railways are not a monopoly. It was right, when they were a monopoly, to insist that they should perform some form of public service but, he says, they are not a monopoly now, but are operating in competition. This is only a half-truth. The railways are a monopoly in certain very important ways. For the transport of heavy goods, the railways are a monopoly; these goods cannot travel by any other means. It is not practicable for a very large part of the freight tonnage to be carried except on the railways. The Minister told us that 17,000 million ton miles of freight went by rail last year. A


large proportion of that must go on the railways, and to that extent the railways are a monopoly.
Millions of commuters travelling to and from the big towns every day must go by rail. They could not possibly go by road. The roads would be completely blocked if they tried. To that extent the railways are still a monopoly over a very wide field. Because they are a monopoly they should be prohibited from levying excessive or punitive charges on their customers just as any other monopoly. Therefore, to say that the railways, because they are no longer a monopoly, should not be subject to control in regard to fares or should not be asked to operate as a public service is, I suggest, nonsense.
The Minister, says, also, that "the test of public need is what the customer will pay for". Again, this is a half-truth. The Minister supports that contention by a reference to what the Select Committee said, but the Select Committee did not say that that was the only test. It is one of the tests. There are very many circumstances where it cannot be the test. A community, perhaps a large community, may depend on a railway service. A large section of the community may no longer use the railway service because many find it more convenient to use some other form of transport, and, therefore, that particular railway service does not pay any longer. Nevertheless, very many people still must use it.
Then the test of the need for the railway is determined not by whether the remainder, which may consist of tens of thousands of people, are prepared to pay excessive fares, but by whether it is performing a vital social service. In our view, where there is such social need, there should be an effective railway service, which should not be discontinued as Dr. Beeching proposes to do under the general directive given to him by the Minister of Transport to eliminate everything which is not profitable.
It seems to us that the Government's basic policy for the railways, "Put up the fares as much as possible and cut services wherever they do not pay" is wrong. It is a foolish policy which may, though we doubt it, bring short-term benefits but which, in the long term, will cause grave harm to the country. I am

sure that it is not recognised generally in the country, and is not fully realised even in the House, to what extent the policy of the Government is likely to interfere with existing transport arrangements. The railway services are an essential part of the social structure of the country, and interference with them to any marked degree must change the habits of life of millions of people and put burdens on them which they never expected to have to bear and which no one has the right to call upon them to bear.
I have been reading all the literature I can about the prospects of railway closures, fares, and so forth. The more I read the more am I alarmed. For example, to quote only one source, there was what seemed to be a very authoritative article in the Observer on 1st April by an expert on the railways.

Mr. Hay: It was wrong.

Mr. Strauss: If it is wrong, I shall be glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say so. The writer's name is Alan Day. He said that the logic of what Dr. Beeching is doing and what, inevitably, he will have to do, is this:
Most of the remaining branch lines outside suburban areas will almost certainly go, which will mean that some quite large towns, such as Mansfield or even Lincoln, may lose their rail services … Towns like Yeovil, Scarborough and Inverness are likely to have to learn to do without rail services, either for passengers or goods.
If he is wrong, I shall be delighted. He gives examples of the sort of thing which will happen throughout the country. Services will be cut to an extent which is not yet appreciated.
A report of a very authoritative statement appeared on the tape this evening. It was an extract from a speech made by Mr. Green, the General Secretary of the National Union of Railway-men, made to the Scottish T.U.C. today. Mr. Green is a most responsible person and he would only say this after meeting Dr. Beeching, as we know he has, and discussing the matter with him. The report of what he says is:
One hundred and fifty thousand railwaymen's jobs are in jeopardy. Of 2,750 trains running in Scotland only 750 pay, and Dr. Beeching is determined to get rid of the 2,000".
This is a most serious situation.
Of course, the Government can succeed in eliminating some, though not all, of the losses on the railways by drastic cuts of this sort, but what will the social consequences be? In a proper contemplation of the problem, should not a balance of advantages and disadvantages be made and the social consequences of any action carefully considered? From all we have heard from the Minister, the answer is that that is not being done. Social consequences do not count. Profitability is the only criterion which will count in the future. To pave the way for that sort of policy, we have the Bill now before us. We think that, on the whole, it is bad and dangerous. Its consequences will be serious for the country. It will impose damage on industry and it will impose damage on the public, far more than ought to be imposed or is necessary even in present circumstances.
For those reasons, we propose to go into the Lobby and vote against the Bill tonight.

7.58 p.m.

Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner: In the Second Reading debate I was glad to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Transport on the skill with Which the Bill bad been drafted and for introducing it. Tonight, I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and to the Parliamentary Secretary for having, with great ability and considerable patience, brought the Bill to its present stage.
I propose to make a short speech dealing only with Clause 53. It is no good disguising the fact that coastal shipowners and those engaged in this not unimportant section of the shipping industry have held the view—the opinion has been shared by some hon. Members —that the Minister of Transport has been biassed in favour of the railways when considering the far from easy problem of ensuring fair competition between the heavily subsidised railways, on the one hand, and coastal shipping on the other.
Having said that, however, I am glad to add that the Amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend yesterday on Recommittal do, to a considerable extent, meet the views of hon. Members who have tried to help him to find a solution to this problem. But, in my view—and

I know that it is shared by other hon. Members—those Amendments do not carry out to the full what we considered was an undertaking given by the Minister during the frequent and fairly intensive discussions over the last few days.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out this afternoon, the trouble is that it will be extremely difficult—I am not sure that it will not be impossible—accurately to calculate the charges which can fairly be assessed in the case of both the short hauls and the long hauls. The charges for the long hauls may be inadequate and the charges for the short hauls may be excessive. My right hon. Friend the Minister recognised this difficulty and gave an undertaking that he would appoint a highly qualified accountant as an independent arbitrator to advise him.
My right hon. Friend repeated that pledge today, and I am glad that he did. But, of course, he speaks only for himself unless the appointment of the arbitrator is written into the Bill. I should be out of order on Third Reading if I discussed further amendment of the Bill, but what I think I can say is that we can fairly assume that my right hon. Friend will not be Minister of Transport for ever. Indeed, in giving a promise to appoint an independent arbitrator he limited that pledge to his own tenure of office. Some day we may have a Minister of Transport who is wholly sympathetic towards the railways and totally uninterested in coastal shipping. Such a Minister could dismiss the independent arbitrator at a moment's notice. Since my right hon. Friend intends to appoint an arbitrator, because apparently he believes that it is an essential part of the necessary machinery to bring fair competition between coastal shipowners and the railways, steps should be taken to make such an appointment obligatory on his successors.
It seems to me that it is not unfair to expect that coastal shipping should receive this measure of security and be confident of the future. It should not remain dependent on the whim of some future and unknown Minister of Transport who may be biassed in favour of the railways and who may not come within miles of the degree of ability which has been displayed by my right hon. Friend, the incumbent at the Ministry of Transport.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Walter Monslow: I do not propose to speak at length, but there are one or two points that I desire to make arising out of the Minister's speech. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of redundancy on which I feel we need some clarification. I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with this aspect of the human problem at greater length when he winds up. We have talked about protection for coastal shipping and for certain other interests purely on a materialistic basis. We have not had much regard to those engaged in the industry.
I wish to ask the Minister about the regulations to which reference is made in Clause 78, which in the original Bill was Clause 79. The Clause reads:
The Minister shall by regulations contained in a statutory instrument require the appropriate body as defined in this section to pay, in such cases and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, compensation to persons who are at the passing of this Act officers or servants of the Commission and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, or whose position is worsened, in consequence of the reorganisation effected by this Act.
If I may say a word or two in retrospect, those of us who have had a very long association with the railway industry will recall the Railways Act, 1921, when the four railway companies were amalgamated. As a consequence of the terrific reorganisation which took place, there was redundancy which affected the staff very seriously. This involved not only the loss of men's livelihoods but the breaking up of homes. Large numbers of drivers and firemen had to transfer, for example, from Scotland to Birmingham and from Birmingham to Bristol. The cleaners who were then employed were dismissed the service.
I should like to know exactly what is meant by "compensation" under Clause 78. There is no indication in the Bill that there is any serious intention to deal with this problem in a way that one would expect. Under the 1921 Act, directors who became redundant were compensated in a very liberal way, whereas the staff received no compensation whatsoever. There was discrimination in the payment of compensation. The white collar workers—I do not use that term in any derogatory sense—received

reasonably generous compensation whereas the operating grades, the drivers, firemen and cleaners, received no compensation.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary indicate whether there is to be discrimination as between grade and grade when compensation is paid under the Clause and what will be the basis of it? The Minister is nodding his head as though he is trying to convey that something will be done about this matter. I know it has been said that there will be consultation with the trade unions. I believe that that is necessary. But I think that we should have a clear declaration tonight that there will be no discrimination as between grade and grade when the basis of compensation is determined. It should be much more liberal than it was under the Acts of 1921, 1947 and 1953.
The Minister indicated tonight that the size of the railways is likely to shrink still further. It will shrink if the suicidal policy which has been pursued in recent years continues.
Road saturation has reached the stage that it is impossible to move on some roads and certain heavy traffic holds up the private motorist. The Minister says that the customer should have the right to choose how to send his goods. I do not want to deny him that right, but we should consider everything that is involved when he gets it. With road saturation at its present level, the number of deaths on the road alone should mean that any Government who believe in the philosophy of safety first, which is preached continuously, should direct certain heavy traffic off the roads and on to the railways. This would enable us to say that we had resolved the problem by facing it realistically.

Mr. Hay: I am sorry to have to revert to the earlier part of the hon. Member's speech when he spoke about Clause 78, but I wish tonight to give him whatever assurance I can and I should like to be a little clearer about his meaning in referring to discrimination between grade and grade. Can the hon. Member elaborate?

Mr. Monslow: Perhaps I may refer to the circumstances which prevailed in the old days under the 1921 Act. In saying this, I make no reflection upon


any organisation within the railways. I am dealing with the matter on the basis of equity and justice. Suppose that an engine driver had done forty-five years' service on the railway. His son might have had only ten years' service on the railways, but in his conditions of service relating to holidays and redundancy provisions, for example, he had a far greater measure of protection than his father who had done treble the son's length of service.
I am asking that there should be no discrimination as between, say, the Stationmaster and the railway fireman or cleaner. The basis of compensation should be one of equity as between the respective grades within the railway service. I know that there is to be consultation with the unions and I believe that the best will be done in the circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has dealt with the social implications of the statement by the General Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen. It was dealt with also by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) on Second Reading and by other hon. Members who have directed attention to the social implications of policy.
Whatever may be said about the Bill, it has gone through all its stages in this House without being altered one iota in principle. To argue whether or not it is a denationalisation Measure is merely playing with words. In my view, the crisis in the railway industry will be a recurring one unless we have a policy of integration and co-ordination whereby all forms of transport—road, rail and canal—work in conjunction to achieve the results that we desire.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I should like to say a few words of godspeed and good will to the Bill on its passage to another place. It has had a long and arduous course. We began early in December and, apart from the Christmas Recess, we have been hard at it ever since. It is probably the longest and most difficult Bill which most of us have had to tackle.
Two things have struck me about the conduct of our proceedings in Committee which redound very much to the excel-

lence of Parliament generally. I refer, first, to the extraordinary good will and good temper of everybody in the Committee. Hon. Members opposite who feel extremely deeply about these matters, have conducted themselves in a wholly admirable manner and have put their case in a way in which they were entitled to do and with the utmost good temper and good feeling all round.
I have appreciated very much the kind and generous treatment which I and those who support the inland waterway interests in the Bill have received from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The amount of time of my hon. Friend and of the civil servants in his Ministry which our interest has taken up has, perhaps, been out of proportion to the importance of the subject vis-à-vis the railway system.
This is, however, the first time that we have been able to do anything in a big, comprehensive way for the inland waterways. I am pleased to say that we have done a great deal. I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for the time he has given to hearing us and for the interviews which he has given to us, to our legal advisers and to all concerned. He has taken a great deal of trouble. I also thank my hon. Friend for his kind letter to me in which he thanked us for what he regards as a useful contribution in helping him and his Department to improve the Bill. All this tends to show up Parliament in an excellent light.
I should like also to say—and this is not said patronisingly but with admiration and respect—how much I have admired the leadership by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) of his side of the House and the Committee. Whenever he rose, I always saw a man who truly had claim to the name "statesman". After a few years in this House, I think I know what that sort of man looks and sounds like. Those are the two things which I have noticed and appreciated most in our proceedings in Committee.
There is no doubt that the Bill can be a godsend for the inland waterways. The great thing that we have been struggling for years to get is an independent board responsible entirely to the Minister and in no way subservient to any other branch of transport. That we have got.


Indeed, the whole system can, and, I sincerely hope, will, benefit greatly from that. We also have the necessary money to do the job and to do it well. With £10 million of grant to be spent over the first five years and a further £11 million, in practice, of loan powers, the new board should be able in that time to make a very good showing. With the advent of the pipe-lines and the most perfect right of way which the canal towpath offers for them we shall be making very soon a substantial profit on the new board.
I am reliably informed, and it may surprise the House to know, that on the pipe-line from the docks in the estuary of the Thames to Birmingham, along the Grand Union Canal, the annual profit should be as much as £250,000. When one considers that the whole deficit on the inland waterways system is under £1 million a year one realises how that can be changed into a profit when on one route alone a profit of £250,000 can be made.
Unfortunately, some people outside the House think that my right hon. Friend managed to secure the sum of money which he has been able to obtain from the Treasury only in order to close down waterways. I do not think that they are justified in making that suggestion, because even the Treasury should know that it is more expensive to close waterways than to rejuvenate them. I prefer to judge my right hon. Friend on what he does rather than what he says.
In saying that I have my right hon. Friend's own words for it, because in the main debate on Clause 10, my right hon. Friend said in Committee:
I was a little puzzled on Tuesday when my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) said that the Government had given no word of encouragement to those who have the future of the inland waterways at heart. I wonder if that statement really bears examination. It is not so much what a man says, as what he does.
Hon. Members then said, "Hear, hear," and my right hon. Friend went on to say:
I shall explain what we have done. As Dr. Johnson said, we cannot pry into the hearts of men but their actions are open to observation." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 22nd February, 1962; c. 848.]
This is what we shall look for from my right hon. Friend in the months that lie

ahead. We shall look for action by him speaking louder than his words, and we shall look forward to having a board which will have the confidence of everyone who understands the problem.
If my right hon. Friend provides this, we shall give him and the board such enthusiastic support that this wonderful heritage of the inland waterways will be transformed into something not to be ashamed of but into something of which we can all be proud. I would not contemplate for a moment what would happen if this did not take place. An hon. Member opposite said something rather controversial the other night about the canal authority, but we have not yet got moving. I believe that the Minister will do what we want him to do and what is the right thing to do. If he does, he will have a great wave of enthusiastic support behind him and eventually we shall have something of which we can be proud.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I do not intend to make a long speech, but I think that I should say something on Third Reading after following the Bill through Committee as often as I could, although, at the same time, I had to attend another very important Committee dealing with the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
We have felt great concern on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report, and now again on Third Reading about the anomalies which we think will accrue through the operation of the Bill. We on this side of the House cannot claim to have been in any way successful in altering the Bill from what it was when the Minister presented it. Nevertheless, on Third Reading we should take the opportunity to reiterate that the sole purpose of the Bill is to establish the principle that railways should operate where profitability can be proved.
Under the direction of the Minister, Dr. Beeching has undoubtedly had his instructions to present a report which will lay down the economic argument applying to British Railways. This economic reappraisal will be based on conclusions concerning the closing down of certain branch lines and sections of main lines for economic reasons.
In the bouts that we have had on this topic, especially applying to Scotland, we have been unable to wring from


the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary exactly how they will approach the question in the political sense, quite apart from the economic aspect of Dr. Beeching's reappraisal. We cannot in any way say that Dr. Beeching is not carrying out the job he has been appointed to do, but I would emphasise that a great responsibility now rests on Parliament, and I hope that the Minister will allow Parliament to assume its responsibility and make decisions. This responsibility will rest on Parliament following Dr. Beeching's report to the Minister.
I have in mind particularly vast stretches of the railways in Scotland, including the main lines stretching into the crofter counties, which are very busy during the restricted summer holiday period in Scotland, but are not paying, when I say that I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us that Parliament will have some say about their being lopped off. It should be borne in mind that already about 30,000 workers migrate from Scotland to England and abroad every year. I am concerned that the cutting down of railway services in Scotland will cause a further exodus of population, especially from the Highland counties, because there will be no livelihood there for the people concerned. It certainly will mean the exodus of all the railwaymen there, for it will mean the closing down of depôts.
I do not know whether English or Irish Members of Parliament are anxious about the problem. I hope that they are and that they recognise that this House has an obligation to outlying districts as well as to the large aggregations of population where lucrative trade can be an inducement to better railway services. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reassure us that, following Dr. Beeching's report to the Minister, Parliament will have an opportunity to decide what areas ought to be kept open, in spite of the fact that the services there are losing money, because of the social consequences which would follow closure. The problem applies not only to Scotland. Large areas of the country west of Bristol and right into Wales will also be affected.
The Minister rather glibly answers us

by pointing to the Post Office occasionally when we draw a comparison. A 3d. stamp has to take a letter to all the outlying areas, from Ross and Cromarty down to Argyllshire and various other parts of Scotland. The postman has to go to isolated Highland crofts to deliver letters on which is a 3d. stamp. The Minister says that this argument does not apply to the rail-ways, however, because the Post Office is a monopoly and the railways are not.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, however. In many respects, as my right hon. Friend said, the railways are a monopoly in certain areas. Indeed, in more and more areas are they becoming a monopoly. For the edification of the Parliamentary Secretary, I will explain, having been a working railwayman, how in some parts they have a complete monopoly of certain goods traffic. There are also many areas where, because of uneconomic returns, the bus services have been withdrawn so that the only transport available is the railways. That means a monopoly in passenger traffic.

Mr. Hay: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of any part of Britain, even in remote parts of Scotland, which has railway lines but no roads? Private transport can travel on the roads.

Mr. Manuel: That would be a very good argument if everybody were earning a salary similar to that of the hon. Gentleman and could own a car. But there are many thousands of poor Scottish fishermen and Highland crofters and many thousands of people in Wales and other areas which are to be denuded of transport who cannot afford a scooter, far less a car.
That sort of thing must be recognised. We have between 8 million and 9 million workpeople still earning £9 a week or less. A man cannot run a car on that wage. Indeed, it is difficult enough to keep a family on it. There are many people in steady employment who are, nevertheless, almost on the National Assistance line. That is the position under the Tory Government. It is another side to the picture, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at that as well.
I said that I would make a few remarks about monopoly in traffic. Our


various steelworks produce very heavy castings. I have taken many trains out of Glengarnock, in Ayrshire, carrying 60 ft. steel rails for export. Does the hon. Gentleman say that they should go by road? Could they go by road? If they cannot, is not their carriage a complete monopoly for the railways?

Mr. Mellish: If they are not economic loads for the railways, they will have to go by road.

Mr. Manuel: That is so. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that, in certain respects, the railways are in a monopoly position for the carriage of certain goods. It is with this aspect that I am concerned.
Much has been made of the possibility of pipe-lines being laid alongside our railways. There could be a good economic return to the Railways Board in laying and owning pipe-lines for the conveyance of oils or other effluents over fairly lengthy distances. In Committee, I expressed my hope that there would be a protective Clause in the Bill in connection with this, but the hon. Gentleman said that we should wait for the Pipelines Bill, which is now in another place. I have not studied the implications of that Bill yet, but we must bear in mind the importance of pipe-lines in this context.
We have in many areas—I think everywhere where there are railways—local authority sewerage pipes or water mains on railway embankments, and, in many cases, crossing the railway lines. If we have an important pipe-line going through, it will possibly cause some disturbance, so that the compensation aspect of this matter from the point of view of the local authorities should be kept in mind. I do not think that these old customers, if I can call them that, should be treated as if they did not matter. We ought to be polite about this, take them into consultation, if we are to have these pipe-lines, and make certain, as I think we could, that the whole thing is carried out in a harmonious manner.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) has referred to compensation arising from various aspects of redundancy. I dealt with that at some length at Committee, and I do not want to go over it again

now. Undoubtedly, as I see it, Mr. Sidney Greene might not be far out in the estimate, which he made today in speaking at the Scottish Trades Union conference in Aberdeen, that 150,000 jobs will be redundant. We do not know the length to which Dr. Beeching's economic reappraisal will go, or how the Minister will apply it. This is a mystery. We have not been able to probe the greater minds who are dealing with this problem, but there will undoubtedly be dismissals. There will undoubtedly be many thousands of men who will have their grade position worsened, and it is these men about whom I am concerned.
We might have a man reduced from being a locomotive driver on a main line to a fireman on a lesser one, and having to shift his home because his former locomotive depot has closed down. I do not know how we shall face the question of the provision of houses. There will be great hardship. Clause 78 of the Bill makes provision for any worsening in a man's position, but if a man is moved down from being a top driver to receiving the bottom rate of pay in that grade, and possibly losing £2 or 30s. a week, or whatever it may be, I think that he ought to be compensated if it is a direct result of the operation of the Bill, or because of a contraction through Dr. Beeching's economic reappraisal.

Mr. Hay: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but a very clear distinction is made in the Bill between people whose position is worsened as a consequence of the reorganisation effected by the Bill and people whose position may be worsened as a result of any contraction of the system which is due largely to operating, financial, economic and other causes. What we do here is to take power for the Minister to make the regulations under Clause 78, as was done in the case of the 1947 Act, to deal with cases in which people's position is worsened simply and solely because of the reorganisation effected by the Bill.

Mr. Manuel: I appreciated what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, but this will be very difficult. I know what happened after the 1921 and 1947 Acts.

Mr. G. Wilson: I have been listening very carefully to what the hon. Member has said. He can remember the 1920s,


as I can, and what happened in the railway service. Is he not exaggerating this matter, because in the 1920s there was heavy unemployment and contracting industries throughout the country, whereas today the reverse is the case. These men, who are highly skilled, might very possibly find bettter paid jobs than they now have.

Mr. Manuel: But a locomotive driver is not like a solicitor, who can move from one office to another and get a job in another type of business, possibly dealing with pipe-lines or conveyancing. That is very easy to do, but if a man has been driving locomotives for forty years he cannot go into another job as easily as that. His job is part of him; it is his life. I have been dabbling in politics all my working life, and have possibly been attending meetings for as long as I have been working on the railway. Nevertheless, I say quite seriously that this would be a very serious thing indeed for a driver who has been in the railway service for forty years and who cannot expect to get another job. I hope that that will be considered.
I hope that when the regulations are brought in to deal with the various facets of redundancy arising from reorganisation, all this will be considered. I want the regulations to be flexible enough to allow the trade unions to be able to prove whether that is so. We have already had an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary, in Committee, that when the regulations are introduced, under the affirmative Resolution pro, we will have an opportunity to debate them and to strengthen them if we can manage to do so.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) mentioned the policy that thought success could be achieved merely by putting up fares and getting a return large enough to make operations worth while, even though several thousand more railway customers were lost. That is happening whether we like it or not, because of the competition of air travel. The railways are having their largest percentage losses on routes between Scotland and England because first-class travellers have found that it pays them to fly to London and spend an extra day here. I do not blame them. We must recognise that this traffic will not return to the railways.
A constituent wrote to me last week and pointed out that he lives near Kilmarnock and travels to London by rail as a first-class passenger. He is one of those who prefer to stick to the railways. The first-class return fare from London to Kilmarnock is £11 17s. Kilmarnock is one hour short of Glasgow, two hours short on the return journey, but the first-class return fare from Glasgow is £10 16s., a guinea cheaper. My constituent remonstrated about this and found his loyalty as a railway passenger was strained to the utmost. He was told that because of the competition of air travel from Glasgow, the railways had had to lower their fares from Glasgow.
That was not much of an answer. Nor was it very realistic, because the first-class air return fare from Glasgow to London is £18 and I would have thought that there was a large enough margin between that and £10 16s. or £11 17s. for the railways to be able to compete. My constituent wrote to the area railway manager and said that he objected to paying the extra guinea. He asked whether it would be all right if, when he was in Glasgow on business, he bought a ticket for £10 16s., but joined the train at Kilmarnock, thus saving a guinea. He was told that that would be permissible. In fact, he was advised that he could do it. That is a completely ludicrous situation.
I should like Parliament to give an impetus to the trial of a cheap fares policy. It has never been tried, but I am convinced that thousands of people who come from Aberdeen, Glasgow, Dundee and Edinburgh to London by bus every summer do not do so because they like coming by bus, but because it is cheaper than coming by train. If we could compete with the buses by having cheap fares, I am sure that we could draw passengers back to the railways. I hope that we shall approach the future in that sort of spirit rather than in a spirit of contraction of services and higher fares, which, inevitably, can only lead to smaller and less profitable railways.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. John Howard: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) in his comments on the respective merits of fares from Kilmarnock


or Glasgow to London, but I think that we all note the point made by him. We admire his athletic prowess in serving on two Committees upstairs and in being able to get from one Committee Room to another to register his approval or disapproval from time to time on various Amendments.
In his opening remarks the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said that the Bill was practically unaltered. I want to restrict my comments to Clause 53 which has been materially altered by the Amendments which my right hon. Friend tabled and which have been incorporated in the Bill. Until these Amendments were incorporated in the Bill, coastal shipping was open to the full blast of unrestricted competition from the railways. The old safeguards in the old 1921 Act had been swept away and coastal shipping was left virtually defenceless.
The question now arises, particularly on Clause 53 as redrawn, whether the present provisions will prevent coastal shipping from becoming a casualty, or whether it will be able to continue to operate competitively with the railways. If we are examining the new provisions, we must look at the formula which the Minister enunciated this evening, the formula for dealing with the particular problems which the coastal shipping interests have put to him.
I make no apology for devoting the whole of this time to coastal shipping because it is an aspect of transport which has been neglected in the debates on this Bill. There has not been the same opportunity to speak about it as about railways, but from reading the reports of the proceedings upstairs I think that the most telling speech on this subject was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) who outlined the problems with which coastal shipping would be faced if Clause 54 as it was, and Clause 53 as it now is, went through without Amendment.
There are certain tests which I think we should at this stage apply to Clause 53 if we are to express an opinion on whether it has achieved its objective. The first test that I apply is to ask myself whether there are means of preventing the railways from taking freights from coastal shipping on the long haul by quoting

rates which are unrealistically low. In other words, can the railway companies be prevented from quoting unrealistically low rates, rates which would ignore, or partially ignore normal overheads, interest and depreciation, together with additions for the replacement of assets in the normal course of business? These are normal items which must feature in the costing of any commercial and competitive undertaking, and coastal shipping falls within that definition.
As I read Clause 53 (2, a), the Minister may make directions if the charges by the railway on a long haul are
inadequate having regard to the full cost of affording the … services
which are the subject of those charges. I hope that the word "may" which has appeared instead of the word "shall" does not indicate any lack of determination on the part of my right hon. Friend to make directions if the case is proved.

Mr. Popplewell: Does the hon. Member agree that it would also be in the best interests of safeguarding our coastal shipping—a very important feature of our national life—that some discussions should take place with the road hauliers, who are also very severe competitors of coastal shipping?

Mr. Howard: I observed the hon. Member's intervention when the Minister opened the Third Reading debate, and I know his views. I do not intend to be drawn into that aspect of consultation, although I hope that there will be a degree of consultation between the coastal shipping industry and the railways on the subject of freights, thus perhaps avoiding the need for any arbitration, or any necessity for the referee to intervene, so that the problem of deciding what full charges are may never have to be asked.
The second test which applies to the short haul can best be expressed by asking this question: does the Bill prevent the railways from making excessive charges on short hauls—that is to say, where the railway has a monopoly? A classic example is the track connecting a coal mine to a port. The pit to port charges may be monopoly charges, and if the railways raise their freight charges to unrealistically high figures the coastal shipping freight rates must be adjusted to take account of the railway


charges which coastal shipping must incur in collecting freight, especially coal freight, from the pit.

Mr. Manuel: If there is a monopoly.

Mr. Howard: Exactly—where a monopoly exists on that stretch of track.
The same formula seems to be applied, with the exception that in this case the test is whether or not the full cost of affording the services is excessive in relation to the conveyance of coal freight from pit to port. I notice that the short haul, as defined in the Bill, is restricted to the haul from the original destination, from the pit to the port, and does not cover the journey from the port to the ultimate destination of the cargo—in other words, at the far end of the journey, when the coastal ship discharges at the port and then has the task of delivering the cargo to the customer. I do not quarrel with my right hon. Friend for omitting this section of the journey from the provisions of the Bill provided he is satisfied that alternative means of transport are available at this end of the journey, thereby avoiding the creation of the monopoly situation to which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire has just referred.
The third test of the adequacy of my right hon. Friend's Amendments to Clause 53 hinges on the way in which the formula for the full cost of affording those services is to be operated. The formula seems quite reasonable, and the decision to ask accountants to apply it also seems acceptable. I must declare an interest in that I am an accountant—

Mr. Ellis Smith: A very good job, too.

Mr. Howard: —and I can see that it should be possible to work a formula Which incorporates this phrase, the fall cost of affording a service. I should like to make one proviso. This formula can be worked only if the information about railway costs and freight rates is available. It must be available to the accountant, or the referee, or whoever it may be who has the task of applying the formula, before he can determine the full cost.
There is a further qualification, that of time. The Minister's intervention, his

decision to make a direction where there is cause for such a direction, must be rapid. Otherwise the freights which are the subject of the dispute will be lost to the railways, by coastal shipping. They will be lost not just for that journey but for ever.
In the original Clause 53, to which I must not now refer, some reliance was placed on the introduction of a referee. I should like to know that the introduction of accountants covers this desire— a very necessary desire—for a referee, not only to obtain information from the Railways Board but also to interpret and apply it to the freight rates which may be in dispute. Certainly, as I have already intimated, accountants would be acceptable to me provided prompt action can be taken when recommendations are made to the Minister and also on the assurance that there will be full information available to enable the accountants to carry out their work.
All hon. Members interested in coastal shipping will make a careful study of what the Minister said earlier in this debate. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the need to decide on the size and shape of the railways. It would be disastrous if, in achieving a right silhouette for the railways we swept out of existence another industry, a private enterprise industry, such as coastal shipping. Clearly it would be quite wrong if by ignoring proper commercial costs a nationalised industry was enabled to compete unfairly with a private industry, particularly one with the fine traditions of coastal shipping, which provides its own finances and which has to face the commercial facts of life.

The Amendments to Clause 53 provide the minimum safeguards, and it is to be hoped that the coastal shipowners and seafarers—because they are at one in their approach to this problem—will receive what they desire, namely, fair trading conditions. If that has been achieved by the Amendments, I feel that the industry will be satisfied.

Mr. Mapp: I am anxious that the coastwise shipping trade should have a square deal. But it is the fact that operators in that trade are also interested in trade to the Continent and in other forms of trade. Would the hon. Member be prepared to ensure that the


freight rates for the coastal trade carried out by these people—many of whose vessels are foreign-owned and operated —have no built-in subsidies? Would he be prepared to agree that their rates should be examined as closely as he is asking that the rates of the Railways Board should be examined?

Mr. Howard: I think that the point there is that the coastal shipping rates are publicly quoted. It is not possible to obtain quotations from the railways, otherwise railway rates would be disclosed not only to competitors in coastal shipping but also in road haulage. However, I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp). It may well be that there is a case for examining the whole of the coastal shipping operations not only in relation to trade round our coasts but also trade on this and on the other side of the Channel by vessels operated from Continental ports. I thank my right hon. Friend for his Amendments to the Bill which certainly goes a good way towards meeting the Amendments which some of my hon. Friends had originally proposed.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Spriggs: The most significant aspect of the Committee stage was that the Minister refused to accept any Amendments. There were thirty-odd sittings at which hon. Members exerted great patience and as a result of which they were obliged to take their meals often late in the evenings. I regret that the Minister put in very little time in Committee, but threw the burden on the Parliamentary Secretary who, on a number of occasions, found it difficult to answer questions put to him.
Both the Minister, when he attended, and the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that the Government's intention was to give the boards greater commercial freedom. I regret that their interpretation of that phrase is not in line even with the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If the same kind of commercial freedom were offered to the Minister's personal friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite they would soon tell him and the Government where to get off, for they would not have it.
I wish tonight to refer to certain figures which I mentioned only briefly

in Committee. It must be remembered that when the Minister refers to commercial freedom he had, by the terms of the Bill, put himself in such a position that none of the boards may take a major decision without first referring their proposals to him and gaining his permission, apart from that of the Holding Company.
Just what will the Holding Company take over? In an attempt to answer this question, I will consider What happened between 1955 and 1960. I could consider other years but I do not wish to weary the House. The figures for 1955 to 1960 are very telling and they provide the reason for the Government's action and also for the wording of the Bill, particularly Clause 29 (9). I have taken from the Fourth Schedule the names of seventeen undertakings which will go over to the Holding Company, including provincial and Scottish bus companies, the Tilling group and the Scottish group. I am sure that these figures are correct, but if any hon. Member wishes to contradict them I will willingly give way.
In 1955 £7,400,339 was received by the British Transport Commission by way of receipts from investments. In 1956 the total was £6,645,130 and in 1957—and I am taking the same companies—the figure was £6,243,679. In 1958 the figure was £7,214,038; in 1959 it was £7,878,136; and in 1960 total receipts from investments in these same undertakings amounted to £7,833,934.
When one looks at these very healthy investments one can see the motive for wording subsection (9) of Clause 29 as it appears in the Bill. Let me read this subsection, because it is very important.
(9) The Holding Company's surpluses may with the consent of the Minister, given with the approval of the Treasury, be retained for the purposes of the conduct of their business, and, except so far as they are so retained, shall be paid over to the Minister and be paid by him into the Exchequer; and so much of the sums so paid into the Exchequer as is of a capital nature shall be issued out of the Consolidated Fund at such times as the Treasury may direct, and shall be applied by the Treasury in redeeming or paying off debt of such description as the Treasury think fit.
If the Government had any principles at all they would withdraw the Bill now. The Minister and other hon. Members today referred to the deficit being written off. I say to the Minister and to his


hon. Friends that if the railwaymen had received fair wages for their labours over many years the deficit would have been far larger. The reason why the deficit is not much larger than it is today is that much of the railway work of the transport services has been carried on the backs of railwaymen who have been sadly underpaid. When the Minister talks of commercial freedom one has to look around to see where that freedom is.
Criticism has been made of the British Transport Commission losses. As a railwayman who has played a leading part in trying to get justice for railwaymen, I also want justice for the railway management. It is unfair to talk about the use of public funds for publicly-owned industries. If we look at the 1961–62 Estimates of aid to private industry by way of grants, subsidies and so on, it is interesting to see what the railways would get if they were given 50 per cent. of what is given to private industry. From what the Minister told us this afternoon, it would seem that the railways constitute the biggest industry in the world, employing over 500,000 men who have suffered for years. The Minister now refuses to accept the principle of Guillebaud in future wage negotiations. Here we have the railwaymen rapidly falling behind the rest of the industrial workers in their standard of life.
Let the House consider the effect of treating the railways only half as well as private industry is treated. We are in favour of putting money into industry to revitalise it. We do not say to the farming fraternity, "You are not entitled to this." We are in favour of it. We support the development of industry. We will vote with any Government which will keep the various industries on their feet and keep the workers fully employed, giving our craftsmen the ability to show that British workmanship is the finest in the world.
If there could be agreement to subsidise the railways as freely and without repayment of any kind as we do those industries to which I have referred that would greatly help the industry. Agriculture receives £348 million a year. If we gave the railways half as much, that would be £174 million a year. If we

took half the amount which we give to the distribution of industry, which was a total of £8 million, the railways would have a further £4 million. If we took half of what we give by way of grants to the aircraft industry, a total of £8 million, that would be a further £4 million to help this great transport industry of ours. Research and development in the aircraft industry receives £160 million. Only half that amount would be £80 million for the railways. A further £10 million is given for the development, improvement and production of transport aircraft, half of which would be £5 million a year for the railways. Are we asking too much for this great transport undertaking?
I submit to the House that hon. Members opposite today have proved beyond doubt that they believe in discrimination to the disadvantage of publicly-owned industry. Back benchers on the Government side have stated that they have no qualms about Tory philosophy. Clause 29 (9) was referred to this afternoon, and one hon. Member opposite stated that his right hon. Friend should not hesitate to sell off these very lucrative undertakings. We took notice of the very important statement of the Minister when he followed up his hon. Friend by referring to the selling off of these undertakings. There is no doubt at all that there is room for serious disquiet in the railway industry. I believe that we have a duty to look at the reason why the holdings which are listed in the Fourth Schedule, in lists A and B. should remain in the hands of the Railways Board when this Bill becomes law. They represent the income of the Transport Commission until such time as the Bill becomes law. From that date onwards the Holding Company will collect all these profits from investments and will hand them over to the Minister who in turn will hand them to the Exchequer.
If this is commercial freedom, as the Minister calls it, I believe that we should give publicly-owned enterprise, no matter what it is, through the boards that are to be set up, commercial freedom. Commercial freedom should mean freedom and not the empty, meaningless words which we have had poured out in Committee upstairs and later yesterday and today on the Floor of the


House. There is no intention of giving publicly-owned enterprise any commercial freedom. If the same standards were to be applied to private industry, hon. Members opposite know that they would not have commercial freedom. They know that the Minister's statement is nothing less than a lot of humbug and hypocrisy. He is covering up this very important Clause 29. In Committee, we opposed Clause after Clause for months, but, of all the Clauses in the Bill, Clause 29 is the most important. The rest of it is dressing to cover up what, in my opinion, is the first step towards denationalising the publicly-owned railway undertaking.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Prior: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) in much of what he said. He referred to the wages paid to railway workers. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton), who represents the National Union of Agricultural Workers, has gone out. He will know that for years I have been saying that the only way to ensure that agricultural workers are paid a decent wage is to get a lot of men off the land and run the farming industry efficiently and economically. I am sure that the same applies completely to the railway industry. We must get men off the railways in order to pay those who are left a proper decent wage. Once that happens, we shall have a far better railway service than we have today.

Mr. Popplewell: Good heavens.

Mr. Prior: Anything which we say to the contrary is plain bad economics and will not help the very men that the Opposition always say they want to help. I am firmly convinced that that is so. However, that is not my main purpose in rising to speak. I wish to discuss Clause 29 and to examine the principle underlying the possibility of selling the manufacturing interests.
I am not against the denationalisation of anything. I do not believe in nationalisation and, therefore, I cannot possibly object to denationalisation. I think that it was wrong in principle to allow the nationalised industries, with their opportunities of borrowing or obtaining credit from the Government,

and with someone else standing their losses, to manufacture in competition with private enterprise. I accept that entirely, but I think that in the case of Bristol Commercial Vehicles and Eastern Coach Works a rather different principle is at stake.
In this case we have the principle of a private enterprise company, as a matter of prudent investment and management of its affairs, using these two companies to build its commercial vehicles, the companies having been nationalised along with the bus operators under the 1947 Act and continuing in that way. In this case, I think it is a mistake to think of selling off those companies and leaving the bus operators separate from them. Since they were part and parcel of the organisation, they should stay in that position.
I took the Minister's words tonight not quite in the way that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) took them. I understood from what my right hon. Friend said that he is willing to direct, or will direct, the Chairman of the Holding Company that he may sell off the three manufacturing companies if he receives offers which independent accountants regard as reasonable and good. I do not think that I can object to that, but we want a guarantee that if those companies are sold the price paid for them will be a good one and that the advantages to the Holding Company in selling those undertakings are greater than their loss would be if they lost them. I hope that the Chairman of the Holding Company and the Chairman of the Tilling Group will be closely consulted before any such move is made.
I wish to examine the attitude of the workers in the factories concerned. My opinion is that they have nothing to lose. They will either go on working for the Holding Company or, if the companies are sold, they will be working for private enterprise. I do not think that there will be any disadvantage to them in working for private enterprise because the Chairman of the Holding Company will have received a sum for those companies which will mean that the factories will have to be worked in much the same way as they were before because the companies which bought the Eastern Coach Works Limited or Bristol Commercial Vehicles Limited would lose a


lot of money which they could not afford to do. I am assuming that they would be sold at a very good price. Provided that happens, the workers would not suffer in any way.
There are, however, certain conditions which should be fulfilled in fairness to the workers. From now on, they will undergo a period of some uncertainty. They have now a full order book and future employment for them for the next year or two will be no trouble. But they will feel from now on that there is a chance that they will have a fresh management. This period of uncertainty should be as short as possible. I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he winds up, will say that he will not extend this period of uncertainty any longer than he thinks is absolutely necessary. If, for example, he says that from vesting date he will allow a year for a decision to be reached and that after that time the Holding Company, if the companies are not sold, will have full powers to carry on under Clause 29, that will be fair to the workers. However, at the moment, I feel that the workers need have no fear, and I am glad about what my right hon. Friend said on the decision that he hopes will be reached.
Clause 9, which sets up the Docks Board, will have a considerable bearing on my constituency. I am not sure what powers the Board will have to sell ports if it wishes to do so. My own port of Lowestoft, mostly a fishing port, has recently had considerably increased charges levied on it by the British Transport Commission. There is a feeling in the fishing industry that the port is not being run as efficiently as it should be run and that these charges are rather higher than is necessary. I am wondering whether when the Docks Board is in being there will be an opportunity for the fishing industry or for some other corporation to buy out the harbour and to run it. I wonder what my right hon. Friend would have to say about that.
All these things apart, I think that the Bill is a good Bill. Change is unpleasant for everyone. We always like to keep the status quo. I am, however, certain that these changes have to be made and will be to the great advantage not only of those who travel, not only of the taxpayers who foot the bill, but also, in the long run, of those who, cer-

tainly in my eyes, are most important— that is, the people who work daily on the railways, on the roads and in the workshops. In the long run, these measures, although they may seem unpopular now because they involve change, will be to the advantage of those people.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Mapp: In reflecting on the Bill, I wish to make a comment on the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). Star Bodies, one of the three firms that seems to have occupied the attention of the House—and bearing in mind the big picture with which we are involved, these relatively small firms do obviously useful work for the appropriate parts of the Commission—is located in the town part of which I represent. I can say unreservedly that any assurances concerning the movement from general employment within the nationalised industry to private enterprise will not afford these people any satisfaction.
I happen to belong to the same kind of organisation of Transport Commission employees as they do. In saying that I have, perhaps, declared an interest in that I was recently with the railways. Having said that, however, I want to think aloud a little because we have now reached the stage when, before long, the Bill will become an Act.
When I reflect on the causes which have given rise to the Bill I am bound to say that it is a problem which has been forced upon the Government. It is not a decision arrived at by rational thinking. The Bill is born of necessity. The Minister and his Government cannot in any way feel that it represents constructive thinking to meet the new age and the new pattern of railways that we shall want.
Let us be quite frank. The Bill is the result of two major problems. One is the tremendous financial liabilities that have overtaken the Commission over the last six years. I do not want to be too political, but it is obvious that those financial liabilities have coincided with the present Government and their predecessors. That is a statement of fact. I do not wish to draw any great significance from it apart from moving away from the political field to new


directions in which most of us—I do not confine myself to either side of the House—consider that we must move.
Allied with the financial problem, the Government were faced with industrial difficulties arising from the fact that railwaymen were underpaid, as they have been for many years and are likely to be for some time. I understand the lives of these people well enough to know that the Government, therefore, will not necessarily have a contented labour force. One hopes otherwise. I would be the last to do other than try to get a happy and contented team. I beg the Minister and others to be careful in those relationships. What has happened was accentuated by the fact that two years ago the Prime Minister himself had to intervene. We now see the long-drawn-out consequences.
The Bill contains nothing apart from the generous recognition and writing off of the financial liabilities of the past. Any Government would have had to face this. It should then become necessary, however, for the Ministry of Transport as a result of its researches to indicate the lines of strategy by which the losses of the past can be avoided.
The Bill is full of hopes and promises, but there is not one economic yardstick in it which will show to the Railways Board how it can obtain a better financial return in the next five years. The Minister and the Government this year and next year are to put in the hands of a railways head, with not much more than a few month's experience, an Exchequer grant of £150 million a year over which the House will have practically no control. The out-turn next year which the Chancellor will meet is not a figure which the House will be able to decide at all. It will be decided by the B.T.C. this year and by the Railways Board and the Inland Waterways Board the year after. Is this the kind of financial scrupulousness that one would expect from the other side of the House? I am always interested in making sure that financially both ends meet, but we have here, as I said in Committee, an open-ended subsidy which has latent dangers, as everyone will recognise.
I tried in Committee to make a suggestion which represented a minority view. I wish to have applied some yard-

stick by which subsidies could be measured in future. I should like the railways to become viable. I doubt whether that is possible on this crowded island, but I am sure that the House will agree that what subsidy is paid should be as small as possible, having regard to the fact that railways are a national service and we want efficiency throughout the system. I believe that before long the pundits will reach a conclusion which I reached long ago. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the railways were losing their public, who were preferring some other means of transport. But to say that is to beg the whole question. Eight out of nine people depend upon shanks's pony, public transport or a bicycle. All people do not own motor cars. We have been neglecting those who have to rely upon the more elementary forms of transport. We must provide for them.
Anyone who costs transport by rail in terms of movement of freight traffic, and similar transport by motor fleet on the roads, finds before long, politics apart, that road freight traffic travelling one-third of the time empty and two-thirds of the time reasonably loaded does not pay anything like its share towards the maintenance of the roads, which are provided free, and towards the cost of policing them. The Minister will have this headache in the autumn. It would be useful during the next few months, without prejudice, to find a fair basis of costing between railway movement and road movement, particularly on the freight-carrying side.
Invariably, when we discuss railway finances we are presented with the figures for the private motorists, who must always be permitted to have their own choice, though it is noticeable, in passing, that three-quarters of the private cars are not owned by those who use them. The business world is itself finding motor cars useful for its executives and salesmen. Consequently, the railways have to face this menace.
The basic costings of the direct overheads falling on railways as opposed to freight road operators are uneven, let alone the operations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not just a question of people deserting the railways. Let us be analytical about this. People are deserting the railways because of the


cost. The chief considerations affecting the choice of a means of transport are speed allied with comfort, safety and cost, and in the long run the cost factor prevails.
The basic costs have been uneven ever since we have had railways. The railways have to carry all their own track costs, policing costs, and so on. When in the autunm the very nebulous statements about the costings of freight and other types of traffic on railways are put forward by Dr. Beeching, I hope that every hon. Member will try to appreciate what is happening. First, these costings are based on insecure basic costings to start with. Also, there is involved in this picture of unfair costings something which anyone in transport recognises, and that is the problem of the rigid track as against the road. These are some of the problems.
As to the problem of track costing, I hope that from the subsidy will be allocated a sum—this sort of thing is regularly done on the railways—to the Railways Board to meet its track maintenance needs and safety precautions which we insist upon to a greater degree in respect of the railways than we do on the public thoroughfares.
If the House is prepared to face what is already faced in many other countries, we shall have a yardstick which will enable us to measure and which can be tied to a given cost. This will help us to deal with the vexed problem of branch lines. I am not one of those who argue that branch lines must be retained in every case because history is that way. My view, frankly, is that once we have allocated to the branch lines a fair share of money from the public purse to deal with their tracks and policing and we find that the public are not using certain lines, those lines should be closed. Do not let us be afraid of moving into the new world.
I would say, in passing, that I do not lack the courage to tell my railway colleagues that we must begin to visualise the country station of the future, and even stations for towns of 10,000 or 15,000 inhabitants—with all the toilet facilities, booking offices and other things that we have been used to in the past—in a different form. The time is coming when tickets will be bought on

the trains and when only in the major centres will a central booking office be justified. I hope that my brother railwaymen will not be afraid of this sort of development. The railways should not be expected to put in toilets and weighbridges, any more than are bus companies. I see no reason, in this new era, why all trains should be moved under the custody of two people—the driver and the guard.
My last point concerns the position of the Minister himself vis-à-vis the proposed Advisory Council. I have felt throughout that this proposal was a piece of window-dressing. I should like to feel that that is not the case, but the Bill destroys the very close and defined links between the British Transport Commission and its various associated bodies. The Bill does not give many teeth to the new Council, although I am still prepared to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the light.
The Minister could get that Council to do a real job of work. Not many Clauses of the Bill deal with the Council, and not a lot has been written into the Bill prohibiting the Council from doing a big job of work. Obviously, much will depend on the Minister. If he merely uses it as a tool for achieving what he wants to achieve, following the political dogma of his party, then the Advisory Council will become illusory.
On the other hand, if we have a Minister interested in giving Britain a transport system able to do the necessary job of work, and one who is prepared to give the Advisory Council a first-class backroom staff and allow it to initiate ideas and thoughts, it may be able to do something worth while. But if the Minister, as the Bill more or less implies, makes sure that the Council thinks only of those things he wants it to think about, it might as well not be born.
There is still, of course, hope that time and tide will change. There is a chance for the right hon. Gentleman to introduce into the Advisory Council not only the chairmen of the respective boards but also people from outside—from industry and the unions and elsewhere. I beg him not to take in yes-men but the type of man who is, perhaps, not too interested in politics but is concerned with seeing that the sinews of movement for people


and goods shall be responsive, efficient and effective. The right hon. Gentleman can bring that about. I trust that he may live up to that hope.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Popplewell: We are now coming to the end of what has been a hectic time for many of us. There have been 35 sittings of the Standing Committee, filling about 1,829 columns of HANSARD. That shows the amount of work which has been done in Committee on the Bill.
I want to join with the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) in paying a compliment to the Parliamentary Secretary. These will be about the only words I am going to say during my contribution to this debate which will be palatable to that side of the House. Although we have opposed the Parliamentary Secretary vehemently during the passage of the Bill, we on this side of the House realise the terrific task which he has had to undertake, and how he has had to take the full weight of the Committee stage on his own shoulders.
The Minister himself came into the Committee only every now and then, entertaining us with some witty observations, but evading the real issues, while the Parliamentary Secretary has nobly defended the position on an extremely sticky wicket, to say the least. Though the Parliamentary Secretary may not like it, we on this side are quite sincere in the observations which I have made about him.
Having said that, I also agree with the Minister that the Bill illustrates the very wide difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. We both accept that, and we approach the whole matter from that point of view, but when he tries to tie that up with his regret that there should be political interference in transport matters, and suggests that there should be a more reasonable line of approach, I think that this is very odd, especially when the right hon. Gentleman is the sponsor of such an atrocious Bill as this.
The Tories seem to suggest that this matter should be approached in a non-political way. They do that not only in transport, but in many other things, provided that everyone accepts their point of view. It is then all right and becomes

a non-political question. What a lot of nonsense this is. We have seen since 1951—and I do not hesitate to repeat here what I said in the Second Reading debate—23 attempts to legislate on transport matters since the Tory Party took office. Not all of them have been official Tory Party Bills. Many have been private Members' Motions, but 12 have reached the Statute Book and this is the thirteenth in ten years.
The Minister talks about approaching this matter from a non-political point of view. The whole essence of what has taken place during these ten years indicates the political nature of the line of approach of the Tories on transport questions. First, they attempt by purely doctrinaire measures to break up a system which has been developed efficiently and which was paying its way, in spite of the attempts of the Conservative Central Office, Ministerial handouts and propaganda points made by Tory back-benchers to suggest that the 1947 Act was a failure.
The 1947 Act was a complete success, for not only did the railway system pay its way, something which was never done in transport in the years between the wars, not only did it meet all obligations, but it made a profit. It is since the Tory Party took control in 1951 that we have had this accumulated deficit of £850 million, which the taxpayer is having to meet.
Alongside this, we have had a spate of transport legislation. The first major Measure of hon. Members opposite was the 1953 legislation which tried to denationalise the transport system. The Minister has made great play with the fact that a noble Lord in another place said that it was not an attempt at denationalisation. But who else has said so? We have said that it was an attempt to cripple the publicly-owned transport system. The 1953 Act broke up many parts of the publicly-owned system and left the holding companies and subsidiaries wide open to take-over bids from any Mr. Clore.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has shown some concern for the works which have been mentioned, but he must not under-estimate the significance of what the Minister said. The hon. Gentleman said that selling off vehicle construction companies would


not mean that the workers would suffer, because they would simply be working for a new private company. Surely he is not so naïve as to believe that. Surely he realises that if these little irritants prove to be a sore in the side of big business, big business will willingly buy them up and close them down and concentrate activities in another area. That is the sort of thing that has taken place all over the country. In my own area at the end of the war big undertakings came along and set up small offshoots, but when the first breath of ill-will came, they closed them down. The hon. Member's constituents are liable to receive the same treatment.

Mr. Prior: I do not think that they are little irritants. They are something bigger than that. If they were little irritants, there would be no case, for they would be inefficient. In fact, they are not inefficient. As private enterprise will be made to pay a very good price for them, it will have to keep them going.

Mr. Popplewell: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. Three firms are involved and their output capacity is about 2,000 vehicles—about 750 bus bodies and most of the rest road haulage vehicles. That is to be compared with the production of 474,000 vehicles throughout the country during the year.
As I have said, we have now reached the ridiculous position when the nation has to subsidise the railways to the tune of £150 million a year. This has been brought about through the ineptitude of Government policy, not only in connection with transport, but in connection with high interest charges and the whole mixture which goes into the orbit. It has arisen because of the Government's ridiculous policy in its Bills of 1957 and 1959 when it instructed the British Transport Commission to go to the open market and borrow money at 6½ per cent. to pay interest charges on money which had already been borrowed at far lower rates of interest. That is the topsyturvy sort of legislation which has been introduced, and I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary assisted in piloting through the 1959 Bill.

Mr. Hay: Mr. Hay indicated dissent.

Mr. Popplewell: We are now faced with a deficit of £850 million which the taxpayer has to pay to an undertaking

which was previously showing a profit. But that is not the whole story. Even the Minister said that his five-year estimate of £450 million investment from vesting day was much too low a figure. He and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury admitted that in about two years they would have to ask the House to reconsider the situation.
We have been reduced to a ridiculous state of affairs. We see in the Bill almost a complete circle of events. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall referred to the various Executives set up under the 1946 Act and abolished in the 1953 Act, and now we are again setting up separate boards plus a Holding Company, but without the umbrella of the British Transport Commission to co-ordinate their work.
There is this big difference. The 1946 Act set up the Transport Commission consisting of nine members, with 45 members to deal with docks, the railways, inland waterways, hotels, and so on, making a total of 54 members, Under the 1953 Act the Transport Com-mission was increased to 14 members, and the number of members on the other authorities was increased to 61. What is the position today? The number of people to be appointed to the Railways Board and the other authorities is 125.

Mr. H. Hynd: Jobs for the boys.

Mr. Popplewell: Absolutely.
The Bill provides an additional 71 jobs for the boys. This state of affairs has been deliberately created by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and at the same time they are asking the taxpayers to foot a bill of £150 million, or to use the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, to pay 8d. in the £ by way of Income Tax.
The Bill perpetuates the weaknesses that were discovered in the transport system betwen the wars. On more than one occasion in Committee upstairs the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the vertical structure of the Bill. He said that each board had to be a self-contained unit. The hon. Gentleman completely ignored the lessons that we learnt before and during the war.
It is impossible to regard the various branches of transport as separate


entities. If we want an efficient transport system, we must forget the idea of keeping roads, railways and inland waterways separate from one another, and regard transport as a whole, and then decide on the best means of moving traffic or people from point A to point B. If we could be assured that the Tory Party will make a genuine attempt to look at the situation from that point of view, there might be some way in which we could get a reasonable line of approach to the problem.
Instead of regarding transport as a whole, we are putting the clock back. We are returning to the old cut-throat days when railwaymen who were receiving £2 a week were asked to accept a voluntary pay reduction of 5 per cent. That was the type of structure which was responsible for the various Transport Acts during the war, which insisted upon the safety of loads, and upon lorry drivers keeping log sheets. That is the situation to which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) wants to return. If his constituents approach him because of a closure of a branch line, or any cutting down in railway services, that is the type of answer he should give them.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: The hon. Member seems to forget that the square deal for the railways was produced in 1947, in an effort to obtain fair competition between road and rail.

Mr. Popplewell: The square deal was proposed at that time because of the cut-throat competition. It is well known that the railways and lorry owners were opposing each other by making applications for licences before the traffic commissioners.

Mr. G. Wilson: The square deal campaign was the result of a demand for the freeing of railways from restrictions, Only later was it diverted to an attempt to restrict road competition.

Mr. Popplewell: That only enforces my point. Since then we have managed to reach a reasonable state of coordination, but hon. Members opposite want to lead us back to the old days.
The consequence of their policy has been a tremendous curtailment in railway services. I was astonished when the hon. Member for Lowestoft said, in

effect, that the best way to make the railways pay was to reduce the staff, in the way that agriculture had been mechanised and made more efficient.

Mr. Prior: No.

Mr. Popplewell: That was my interpretation of the hon. Member's observation. Let us see what has happened.
Since the closures began there has been a reduction in railway staff of about 163,980, and we understand that in discussions at the consultative meeting on Monday Dr. Beeching intimated to the trade unions concerned the fact that there might be a further reduction of 100,000 in railway personnel. It is against that background that the Minister deliberately insulted the railwaymen, when, in effect, he said there were none of sufficient calibre to fill the higher appointments under the terms of the Bill. At the following meeting of the Committee he tried to contradict what he had said. He blamed the acoustics of the room. But all those who were in Committee know that the Press reports at the time were quite correct.
Only today we were told that 148 shopmen have received their notices at York; 62 at the North Road shops, Darlington, and 22 at Faverdale. This is all linked up with what we understand to be the policy of Dr. Beeching, which is to close one-third of the railway system. What does this mean? It would appear that in future there will be no railway services west of Plymouth, or west of Carmarthen, or east of a route along the East Coast. If the present policy is pursued to its logical conclusion there will be no railway services at all north of a line from Glasgow to Edinburgh. In that area of Scotland it is likely that there will be no railway services.
There have been 467 closures of parts of the railway service and this includes not only branch lines, but large sections of the railway track. We are fold that this is only the beginning. The policy which is being carried out by Dr. Beeching at the direction of the Government disregards the need to provide a social service. The criteria for the successful operation of the rail transport system is to be the profit and loss account. It is possible that sur-


burban traffic may pay its way but big losses are building up in the commuter services and a drastic curtailment of such services is possible.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), and other hon. Members representing constituencies in the North-East, are upset at the proposed closure of the North and South Tyneside electric service. Other hon. Members are concerned about what may happen to commuter services in their constituencies. I suggest to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth and other hon. Members opposite that when their constituents approach them on these matters, they should not shuffle off their responsibilities but rather they should say, "I am responsible for this because I supported a Government which deliberately brought about this state of affairs."
I agreed with the Parliamentary Secretary to share the last three-quarters of an hour of the time of the House and I have come to the end of the time alloted to me. I wish to conclude by saying that we regard the Bill as a shocking Measure, but look upon it as temporary legislation. Let there be no misunderstanding of the fact that when we are returned to power, as we shall be after the next General Election, one of the first tasks of a Labour Government will be to establish a co-ordinated, integrated transport system based on the need to provide a service for the community and to meet the requirements of the nation.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Hay: On one thing the hon Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) and I agree. We are both rather glad to come to the end of this very long road. The hon. Member is lucky in some respects. I suppose that now he may have a well deserved rest for a little while. But as soon as the House reassembles after the Easter Recess my right hon. Friend and I must turn our attention to the Road Traffic Bill and that again is a Measure which is likely to lead us along a rather long road—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."]— we are not prepared to resign. We are prepared to carry on with the job which we know has to be done.
I wish to say one other thing before replying to the debate and I say it on

behalf of my right hon. Friend as well as myself. We are extremely grateful, as I am sure is the House as a whole, to those behind the scenes who have assisted us with this Measure. The House will realise the vast amount of work involved behind the scenes, and my right hon. Friend and I are grateful for the help we have had.
I would take the attention of the House back to the start of the Bill. Why did we decide to introduce a Measure of this kind? It is essential to go back to the situation we found when my right hon. Friend was appointed—a situation which was outlined to a large extent by the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries dealing with British Railways. We discovered that three major things were wrong.
First, the financial situation of the British Transport Commission. The accumulated deficits at present amount to no less than £625 million and this figure does not include the capitalised interests. If one takes British Railways alone, the accumulated deficits since nationalisation, since 1947, have mounted until they are now £700 million. That was the first thing we had to deal with.
Secondly, we had to look at the structure of the B.T.C. It is true that in 1953 alterations to that structure were made but, nevertheless, basically the structure of the B.T.C. today is the same as it was in 1947 when the party opposite nationalised it. It is still a large, unified structure, very cumbersome and, as our colleagues on the Select Committee found and stated clearly in their Report, one in which the attentions of those in charge were divided—on the one hand between those things which were socially desirable and which they felt they must try to fulfil in the light of the statutory duty placed on them and, on the other, those things which were economically right.
The third thing we found was that the B.T.C. was saddled with a whole mass of commercial restrictions, things which prevented it from making a profit out of its undertaking, things which have their origin way back in the early history of the railway industry and things which were imposed by Parliament in the interests of the Community on an organisation which then had a virtual monopoly of transport—such things as the control over fares and charges and the common


carrier obligation. These things were said by those who know anything about the railways to be inimical to any kind of economic operation.
We turned our attention to these problems and we produced this Bill, the provisions of which I will describe and which deal with each of these problems. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and other hon. Members opposite, have complained today that in Committee and on Report few, if any, of their Amendments were accepted. Really, they can hardly be surprised at that, because they have, in the same breath, often told us that they are dead against this Measure, that it is a wicked and improper one and that it is founded on a political policy which is entirely different from their own. In those circumstances, they can hardly expect us to accept the Amendments they put forward, many of which, frankly, were in the form of wrecking Amendments.

Mr. Spriggs: What an excuse!

Mr. Hay: Where reasonable Amendments were put down by hon. Gentlemen opposite we have sought, where we could, to meet their points. There are quite a number of them, but I will not rehearse them now. In other cases we have given assurances and, in others, we have tried to do what we can to meet the problems raised in some other way than by legislation.
I come to the details of the Bill. Regarding the financial problems I have outlined, few hon. Members have emphasised the tremendous nature of the financial reconstruction which is being carried out by the Bill. It is an essential part of the Bill because we are writing off, remember, £475 million of accumulated deficits. At the same time, we are placing to suspense between £650 million and £700 million. These are very large sums of money indeed, and I am surprised that we have not heard a little more from some of the financial purists, of whom there are quite a number in this House, about these proposals. Nevertheless, we have got through successfully so far, and I hope that we shall succeed.
Next let me say a word about the structure. As I said, we discovered that

the British Transport Commission structure was cumbersome, top-heavy and out of date for the sort of job that the nationalised transport undertakings today have to do. Therefore, what we sought to do, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West reminded the House just now, was to divide the undertaking into its component parts. Whereas we find today that the British Transport Commission is a horizontal structure, the Bill will provide for a vertical structure to divide up the undertakings into their component parts—the railways, London Transport, the docks, the British Waterways Board and the Holding Company, which is a new concept in nationalisation in this country.
To each of these boards we have given a set task in a clearly defined field, and it is our intention that the boards and the Holding Company should stay within their set task. We have been obliged to resist Amendments from hon. Members opposite which would have sought to enlarge the scope of each of these boards because we want them to concentrate on the job that they have to do and not find themselves back in the same situation as the British Transport Commission has done.
I should like to say a word on the regional railway boards, a matter of some importance. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall and others asked questions about the extent to which there would be delegation of functions by the Railways Board to the regional railway boards. As I have said on a number of occasions, we have deliberately not written into the Bill any precise provisions of this kind simply because we believe that the interests of the undertakings will best be served by the maximum degree of flexibility. Moreover, until the Railways Board itself is established and the regional boards, too, we shall not be in a position to have the benefit of their views upon the subject.
During our debates in Standing Commitee the Opposition pressed for the disclosure of information on the way in which the Railways Board would delegate functions to the regional boards under the provisions of Clause 2 (4). The right hon. Member for Vauxhall and the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) participated in a discussion


on this subject on 30th January last. They will remember that I undertook to consider then what we should do about it.
Our conclusion is that it is desirable for Parliament and the public to be informed about the Railways Board's delegation to the regions. After the Railways Board has been set up and the initial decisions have been come to, my right hon. Friend will take a suitable opportunity of acquainting the House of them. This might be in an answer to a Parliamentary Question or by way of a statement. We shall see.
We shall also see that the Railways Board's annual report will include each year a specific reference to this point, which again will enable Parliament to review the policy which is involved. As the House knows, it can debate these matters in any debates that take place on the Railways Board's report and accounts from time to time.
My right hon. Friend, moreover, has consulted Dr. Beeching about these matters, and I can tell the House that Dr. Beeching, who will be Chairman of the Railways Board, agrees to our proposals and he will, of course, be in a position to ensure that the undertaking I have given about the annual Report will be fulfilled.
May I next say a word about a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) about Clause 78, because I am talking about the reorganisation side of the operation that we are undertaking. He was concerned, as indeed were other hon. Members in Standing Committee, lest under Clause 78 there might be some discrimination between the different grades of staff who might suffer a worsening of their position as a consequence of the reorganisation, and who might, therefore, get differing amounts of compensation.
I must make it clear to him, as I did in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), that Clause 78 is concerned only with the situation where a person in the employ of the Commission at the moment suffers some loss as a result of the worsening of his position directly resulting from the reorganisation. We

do not in that Clause, nor anywhere else in the Bill, take power to deal with the case of people who are redundant as a consequence of the ordinary operational changes in the undertaking. If, for example, a branch line is closed, that is not a consequence of the reorganisation effected by this Bill. It is part of the operational change in the railway system. So far as the cases falling directly under Clause 78 are concerned, I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that there will be no discrimination in the way I understood him to make the point.
The third thing that we are trying to do by this Bill is to give the railways in particular and, indeed, all the undertakings a greater degree of commercial freedom. I hope that it will be understood and appreciated by the House, as it certainly must come to be appreciated by the public as a whole, that the railways in this country no longer operate in monopoly circumstances. Indeed, the very fact that throughout the country there are other forms of transport or other media of transport is in itself an adequate check against any possible abuse by the railways of the commercial freedom that we are conferring upon them by this Bill.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall and other hon. Members opposite to say that all the troubles of the railways today, all this accumulated deficit, losses and so on are the direct consequences of Conservative Party policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] It is easy for them to say that, but it is very far from the truth. Those of us who know anything about these matters know perfectly well that the reason why the railways in particular are in difficulty today is simply and solely because, over the last fifty years, there has been a steady and recently a quickening movement from rail to road, both for personal transport and the transport of goods.
At the same time, to complicate the issue still further, there has been a drift from public transport of all kinds to private transport. It is a combination of these two things—the drift from rail to road and from public to private transport—which has put the railways in the mess in which they are today. It is that


which is really responsible. If, in fact, as obviously will be the case, railway lines have to be closed, it is simply and solely because they just do not pay.
We must ask ourselves: why do they not pay? The answer is a simple one. Because they are just not being used. That is to say that already people are deciding how they want to travel. They have decided that they want to go by road and, where possible, in their own private transport. This is the decision that the public is making, and the job of the railways is to accommodate itself to that situation.
As we see it, we have a clear choice We can follow the course that the Opposition have urged upon us from the time we debated the White Paper right the way through until tonight, that is, to retain as much as possible of the present system virtually intact on the ground that we need a railway system of that sort and shape because of social needs. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have made no bones about this. They have said that we need to maintain our railways on social grounds.
There may be an argument—I concede this point—that we should have railways in some parts of the country on social grounds for passengers. But I ask the Opposition: do they carry this argument about social needs to the extent of saying that we should have a railway system of its present size and shape for freight? If that is what they say, let them remember how costly this would be and how costly it has been.
In 1955, the railway deficit was £38 million. In 1958, it had risen to £97 million. In 1961, it was £151 million. If we are to maintain our railway system as a social service and meet the cost out of the taxpayers' pockets, where do we stop? What is the point at which the cut-off would come? Do we go on subsidising our railways to the tune of these many millions of pounds and many more, indefinitely, not just for the benefit of passengers, but also for the benefit of those who send their goods by rail? We must remember that all this money is not fairy gold. We are talking about money which has to be found by the taxpayer.

Mr. Mapp: Mr. Mapp rose—

Mr. Hay: I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me. He knows that I usually give way, but time is rather short and I am speaking against the clock
The alternative course we can take is the sort of course to which the Bill itself is a signpost. As I have explained, we seek by the Bill to do three things: first, to reconstruct the nationalised transport undertakings; second, to impose upon them some degree of financial discipline; third, to give them commercial freedom to an extent which is justified and which is, indeed, vital in these modern days.
Of course, in all this we do not ignore the social needs of the country. We do not blind ourselves to the social consequences. What we say is that the test of what the consumer is prepared to pay should be the correct and proper test for our railways and for the other transport undertakings with which we are here concerned.
I do not pretend, and we have never during all the debates pretended, that the Bill will solve all our problems. It is not intended to solve all our problems, and, in the nature of things, it would not do so. What I do claim firmly is that it will provide us with a framework for the necessary action which we must take to give these great transport undertakings, particularly the railways, and those who work in them a new deal in modern conditions.
We on this side of the House have approached the whole problem from a strictly practical point of view. We have not approached it in any spirit of dogma. We have not said that, because these undertakings are nationalised, we should approach them in a hostile spirit. We conceive it to be the duty of the Government and of the Conservative Party, in the middle of the twentieth century, to deal with these problems in a practical way. The contest between the two sides of the House is not about more nationalisation or less, but about how those industries and services which are nationalised can best be made to work. I do not pretend that the Bill is a final solution. I claim that it is a useful and necessary Measure which we must have if these undertakings are to be given again an opportunity to serve our nation as it should be served.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 206.

Division No. 171.]
AYES
[10.29 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Forrest, George
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Aitken, W. T.
Foster, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Allason, James
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Freeth, Denzil
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Arbuthnot, John
Gammans, Lady
Maddan, Martin


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Gardner, Edward
Maitland, Sir John


Atkins, Humphrey
Gibson-Watt, David
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Balniel, Lord
Glover, Sir Douglas
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Barlow, Sir John
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Marlowe, Anthony


Barter, John
Goodhart, Philip
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Batsford, Brian
Goodhew, victor
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Gough, Frederick
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray


Bell, Ronald
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maxwell-Hyslop, L. L.


Berkeley, Humphry
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Green, Alan
Mills, Stratton


Bidgood, John C.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Montgomery, Fergus


Biffen, John
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bingham, R. M.
Gurden, Harold
Morgan, William


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, John


Bishop, F. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Black, Sir Cyril
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Nabarro, Gerald


Bossom, Clive
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Neave, Alrey


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Noble, Michael


Box, Donald
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Orr, Capt L. P. S.


Braine, Bernard
Hay, John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Brewis, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Brooman-White, R.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bryan, Paul
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Peel, John


Buck, Antony
Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Bullard, Denys
Hobson, Sir John
Peyton, John


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hocking, Philip N.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Holland, Philip
Pitman, Sir James


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holt, Arthur
Pitt, Miss Edith


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pott, Percivall


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornby, R. P.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Channon, H. P. G.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chataway, Christopher
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Prior, J. M. L.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Cleaver, Leonard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cole, Norman
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pym, Francis


Collard, Richard
Jennings, J. C.
Quonnell, Miss J. M.


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ramsden, James


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rawlinson, Peter


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Rees, Hugh


Coulson, Michael
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Renton, David


Critchley, Julian
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ridsdale, Julian


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Knox
Kirk, Peter
Robson Brown, Sir William


Curran, Charles
Kitson, Timothy
Roots, William


Dalkeith, Earl of
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Dance, James
Leather, E. H. C.
Russell, Ronald


Deedes, W. F.
Leavey, J. A.
Scott-Hopkins, James


de Ferranti, Basll
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Seymour, Leslie


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharples, Richard


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Shaw, M.


Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


du Cann, Edward
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Duncan, Sir James
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Eden, John
Longden, Gilbert
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Loveys, Walter H.
Speir, Rupert


Emery, Peter
Lubbock, Eric
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Stevens, Geoffrey


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McAdden, Stephen
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Storey, Sir Samuel


Fisher, Nigel
McLaren, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)




Tapsell, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Whitelaw, William


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Teeling, Sir William
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wade, Donald
Wise, A. R.


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Walder, David
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Walker, Peter
Woodhouse, C. M.


Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Woodnutt, Mark


Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wail, Patrick
Woollam, John


Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Ward, Dame Irene
Worsley, Marcus


Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold



Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Webster, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Turner, Colin
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Finlay.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hayman, F. H.
Owen, Will


Ainsley, William
Healey, Denis
Padley, W. E.


Albu, Austen
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Paget, R. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Awbery, Stan
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Parker, John


Baird, John
Hilton, A. V.
Parkin, B. T.


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Pavitt, Laurence


Bence, Cyril
Houghton, Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Peart, Frederick


Benson, Sir George
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pentland, Norman


Blackburn, F.
Hoy, James H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blyton, William
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Popplewell, Ernest


Boardman, H,
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Prentice, R. E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Probert, Arthur


Bowles, Frank
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Proctor, W. T.


Boyden, James
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Randall, Harry


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rankin, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger, George
Redhead, E. C.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Reid, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reynolds, G. W.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Callaghan, James
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Chapman, Donald
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cliffe, Michael
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, Clifford
Ross, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cronin, John
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Ledger, Ron
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Darling, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Small, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Snow, Julian


Deer, George
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson
Stonehouse, John


Diamond, John
McCann, John
Stones, William


Dodds, Norman
MacColl, James
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Donnelly, Desmond
McInnes, James
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swain, Thomas


Edelman, Maurice
McLeavy, Frank
Swingler, Stephen


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Taverne, D.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Evans, Albert
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Finch, Harold
Manuel, Archie
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Fitch, Alan
Mapp, Charles
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Fletcher, Eric
Marsh, Richard
Thornton, Ernest


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mason, Roy
Tomney, Frank


Forman, J. C.
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mellish, R. J.
Warbey, William


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, J. J.
Watkins, Tudor


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Millan, Bruce
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Greenwood, Anthony
Milne, Edward
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Grey, Charles
Mitchison, G. R.
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, Walter
Wigg, George


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Morris, John
Willey, Frederick


Gunter, Ray
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Neal, Harold
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hannan, William
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Harper, Joseph
Oram, A. E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oswald, Thomas








Winterbottom, R. E.
Wyatt, Woodrow
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Mr. Short and Mr. Rogers.


Woof, Robert
Zilliacus, K.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

Resolution of the House [28th March] relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee, and so much of the Lords Message [10th April] as signifies their concurrence in the said Resolution, read.

Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords to consider whether any, and if so what, changes should be made in the rights of Peers of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain or of the United Kingdom, and of Peeresses in their own right, to sit in either House of Parliament, or to vote at Parliamentary elections, and whether, and if so under what conditions, a Peer should be enabled to surrender a peerage permanently or for his lifetime or for any less period having

regard to the effects and consequences thereof:

Mr. F. M. Bennett, Mr. Edward du Cann, Mrs. Evelyn Emmet, Mr. Gordon Walker, Mr. Leslie Hale, Mr. Gilbert Longden, Mr. Mitchison, Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe, Mr. Charles Pannell, Sir Kenneth Pickthorn, and Mr. Donald Wade:

Power to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time:

Five to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships, and to request them to appoint an equal number of Lords to join with the Committee appointed by this House.

PRIVILEGES

Mr. Grimond added to the Committee of Privileges.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

FRACTURED GAS MAINS (DEATHS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. M, Hamilton.]

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: This is a sad story involving the loss of three adult lives in Oldham due to a gas escape from a street main to a house powered exclusively by electricity and without any gas fittings of any kind. During the course of my inquiries I found that the renewal policy of the North Western Gas Board was to a large extent linked with the tragedy, and I shall seek to establish that, while its policy of continual vigilance against possible leakages is vigorously administered, its renewal policy nevertheless rests on the assumption that the pipes are both safe and effective, and that there is no planned policy in which age, age defects or other weaknesses, including soil, play a leading rôle.
On Sunday, 31st December last, Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher, of 29 Marion Street, Oldham, invited four friends, Mr. and Mrs. Beasley and Mr. and Mrs. Knott, to share an evening meal and a little jollity in preparation for celebrating the New Year. Their house is a typical terraced house in a pleasant working class area, No. 29 being at the end of the street, with the gable end abutting to the pavement of Emma Street. The house was clean and well kept, electrically powered, and had concrete floors in all downstairs rooms.
It is known that they sat down to a meal about 8 p.m., that they enjoyed an odd glass of sherry before midnight and that Mr. Fletcher apparently let the New Year in. Late in the evening of the following day, 1st January, their niece, anxious about them, called at the house and found the newspaper in the door, the lights full on and the curtains drawn, and immediately returned to her mother, who thereupon visited the house and, hearing groans from the living room, telephoned the police and succeeded in forcing an entry through the back door. In the event, of the three men in the front room Mr. Fletcher and

Mr. Knott were dead and Mr. Beasley unconscious, and in the other room Mrs. Fletcher was dead and the two other ladies were unconscious.
The evidence given at the inquest indicated that these six people had, following their meal, complained to each other about feeling unwell and, in the absence of any other reason, thought it might be due to the meal that they had had. As gas was not supplied to the house, the thought of gas did not enter their minds and the survivors say that no one even suspected gas. Technical evidence at the coroner's court indicated that gas had escaped from the main at the gable end of the house 5 ft. to 6 ft. from the wall and had found its way underneath the house. At 9 p.m. the following day, that is, 1st January, the gas engineer identified a gas smell in the neighbourhood of the stairs in the house.
Upon opening the street main later, it was found that a fracture had occurred in a cast iron pipe of three inches diameter which was laid 2 ft. 7 ins. below pavement level. The crack was round the circumference of the pipe which had been laid in 1910, and it was said that the subsoil was loose below frost level. I should say that about and before this date the weather was very cold and readings show that the temperature in the Oldham area remained below freezing point from 26th December onwards, reaching 14 degrees of frost on the 27th and 6 degrees to 12 degrees on the nights of 30th and 31st December.
There were no direct ducts into the house and it was thought that gas had escaped to the foundations of the house, bearing in mind that to some extent frost had sealed the normal ground surface. At the inquest the gas engineer stated that the normal expectation of life of this pipe was 100 to 120 years, though that may be startling to the ordinary layman, as it was to me. It was also added that subsidence might have been caused by percolating water.
Marion Street was reported to stand on the site of the old Honeywell Colliery, and also a reservoir, and in the opinion of the gas engineer the fracture of the pipe had probably been caused by ground movement. Following corre-


spondence with the North Western Gas Board, I was told in a letter:
Because it has been conclusively established that the age of the main or service pipe is not in itself any indication of its liability to fracture, the programme of replacement is based upon the information maintained on street record cards which embrace the whole of the Board's Area and which show the condition of mains and services and of the surrounding subsoil. The information on these cards is brought up to date whenever a main or service pipe is exposed by the Board for any reason and whenever any major street works are undertaken by local authorities or public utilities. The same reporting system applies to minor street works of any nature which come to the knowledge of the Board's distribution staff. Any defects are dealt with immediately.
Following correspondence with the Minister, the policy of the Gas Board was confirmed, and in a significant paragraph of his letter of 15th March the Minister stated:
More work is being done and no final answer has yet been found, but the industry is alive to its responsibilities and is making a serious effort to reduce the danger.
This street, as I have said, is at the top of an old coal shaft and I find that in 1932 a 13½-ton road roller fell into a cavity in the street when the old shaft, 10 ft. in diameter, was revealed. The shaft head was 7 ft. 6 ins. below the street level. More recently, water mains were repaired on 15th May, 1961, outside this house. I gather that the defects which caused this tragedy were dealt with on 13th January, but I am not sure whether by repairs or renewal. My information, second hand so far, is that it was by renewals.
I have had the opportunity of discussing the general question with the Chairman and the Secretary of the Gas Council. I gather that there are 100,000 miles of street gas mains, that it costs between £5,000 and £10,000 per mile for renewal and that in 1961 32 people lost their lives in circumstances where they had not in any way been negligent. We—that is the representatives of the Gas Council and myself—did not differ for one moment on the vigilance—and I underline this—which the gas boards bring to their task of ensuring safety to the 12 million users, but it is clear that there is a wide divergence of view about the importance of age in relation to maintenance and safety when renewals

are being scheduled. This is the real point of difference.
It seems, too, that the thinking in the gas industry itself has some reservations about the renewal policy, and I call in aid the postscript to a letter in the Manchester Evening News, some time in the middle of January, in which an official of the North Western Gas Board said:
… age of gas mains is not a prime cause of fractures. The real cause has been unsuitable soil conditions leading to subsidence at the beginning of a frost or in the thaw afterwards. Age is a factor where this subsidence acts on old type mains which do not have the modern flexible joints. We now satisfy ourselves about soil conditions before we lay new mains. The Victorians did not. To combat this we have inspection units out every working day of the year concentrating on older areas in the winter.
In quoting this statement, I understand that in the old days, whether the soil was suitable or not, it was used in the filling up process, whereas the present method is to examine such soil and to supply appropriate packing soil if this is found necessary. Secondly, I gather that the old joints are now condemned so that in this case there continued to appear to be two built-in defects, apart from the age of the pipe and the fact that the area had formerly been a coal shaft.
The real point at issue is, of course, the importance which the gas boards attach to age and the defects of age in respect of gas pipes. At present, they regard age as a minor contributing factor when considering replacement, and it is my submission that this case illustrates not only special conditions in the way of old coal workings, but that the mains were over-ripe for renewal, based both on age and subsoil conditions.
True, the question of finance must enter into this problem when the gas boards are faced with it. They are rightly jealous of their concern for public safety, but this case illustrates the need for an improved and altered policy in regard to main renewals. It is doubtful whether cast iron pipes can be expected to have an expendable life of over 100 years when laid below ground, and if we accept that contention knowing that the pipes are, in fact carrying lethal agencies, and we also assume that vigilance as


such is the answer, in 1962 we are surely condoning tragedies that should be avoided.
The Minister must clearly be anxious about this problem. Sympathy in this kind of case is, naturally, universal and widespread. I have brought the matter to the House because I believe that we have a duty to question and to improve the renewal policy, to invest in the best brains to solve this anxious problem, and not least, if in fact the solution lies, as I think it does, in the direction of renewal with age playing a much more important consideration, face the financial adjustments that that will involve.
In these circumstances, in the light of what I have said—and I have tried to lift the matter to a higher plane, and not keep to a narrow constituency basis —I ask the hon. Gentleman to be forthcoming on the issue and to allay the public anxiety which has rightly arisen by agreeing to try to get the boards to give a higher degree of priority to the problem of age in relation to the renewal of these old service mains.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Stan Awbery: This problem applies not only to Oldham, but to all our large cities. Two years ago a similar explosion occurred in Bristol, fortunately without killing anybody. I suggest that the time has come for us to search for a remedy for this state of affairs, and that that remedy is to be found in the age of pipes. If the gas authorities took a census of old pipes they would know when they were due for renewal. They would be able to ascertain whether existing pipes were safe. Other difficulties arise which could cause explosions, apart from the age of pipes, but that is certainly a contributory factor, and I suggest the Minister should take up the census question with the gas authorities.

10.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) has approached this human and technical problem with care, caution and responsibility. He has not overstressed the human aspects, but has painted a clear picture of a very painful tragedy. We are all sad when lives are prematurely ended, and a true earnest of our regret

is provided by the steps taken to ensure that all contributory causes for which we carry some responsibility are closely examined. After weaknesses are found remedies must be devised to minimise, if not eradicate, the possibility of a recurrence.
The hon. Member readily and kindly accepted the anxiety of the North Western Gas Board to provide a safe system. He welcomed the widespread inspection system for the detection of leakages recently introduced and vigorously developed by the Board. I am grateful to him for his well-balanced comments on these matters. But even with an acceptable inspection system, tragedy can strike, as it did in Marion Street, Oldham, last New Year's Eve. The details have been accurately related by the hon. Member and I will not repeat them. The cause was the escape of gas from a hair crack in a three-inch cast iron main, running parallel with and some distance away from the gable end of No. 29.
In frostbound conditions, for a variety of reasons, line fractures are more numerous than under normal weather conditions. Furthermore, the leakage resulting—again due to the effect of frost—is frequently forced into unexpected channels of escape. In this case leakage entered from under the floor, as the hon. Member said.
Following the incident the crack which was discovered was sealed effectively with a substantial collar. An extended examination showed the main to be otherwise in good condition, with no material defects, and no corrosion. Later some suspicion of further leakage was reported in Marion Street, and examination revealed the presence of minute quantities of carbon monoxide. To allay all fears rather extravagant remedial measures were taken—service pipes were removed and renewed. This is the story of this sad and regrettable affair.
From the theme of the hon. Member's speech I assume that the collaring of the cracked pipe, rather than the renewal which he thought had taken place, will not have his approval. Renewal, and only renewal, will meet his idea of effectively preventing a recurrence. I will just say that the North Western Gas Board's engineers are men


of high ability and long experience. They are fortified by the Code of Practice of the Institution of Gas Engineers, and while respecting the fears and anxieties of the hon. Gentleman, I ask him to accept that this type of repair has over the years been proved to be completely effective in thousands of cases throughout the country, and that there is no reason to expect it to be less successful in this case.
This main which was fractured was not one which had been neglected or ignored. A thorough examination by the inspection experts had been carried out in July, 1961, only six months before, and no defects were recorded. Therefore, we must assume, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, that either severe weather conditions or unusual earth movements caused the fine crack in an otherwise sound main line. A close watch will be kept, although there is every confidence that conditions are now safe and sound.
I turn now to the broader aspects of the problem. Deaths from fractured gas mains generally are the subject of this debate and I should like to remove a fairly widespread but erroneous impression that incidents of this type are responsible for a high proportion of the total deaths from accidental gas poisoning. We all regret that there are any deaths from this cause, but the actual position is that deaths from fractured mains in England, Scotland and Wales added together were: 1956, 3·3 per cent.; 1957, 2.6 per cent.; 1958, 2.2 per cent.; 1959, 2.5 per cent., and 1960, 2 per cent.

Mr. Mapp: Would the Minister be good enough to translate these percentages into numbers of people involved? It would be more helpful.

Mr. George: I had intended to do that next.
The percentages give the true proportion of total deaths caused by fractured gas mains and show that it is a relatively small percentage. The numbers were: 1956, 27; 1957, 21; 1958, 20; 1959, 24; 1960, 20. The year 1961 was not good and 32 deaths have been recorded, but we have not the actual percentage as the other accident statistics are not available. That puts this problem in its true perspective.
The hon. Gentleman has been very fair all the way along and he has evidently formed the strong impression that the principal causes of fractures are age, rigid jointing and poor soil conditions. He urges, first, that a plan for systematic renewal of old pipes be devised; secondly, that we invest in the best brains to solve this anxious problem; and, thirdly, that we face the financial adjustments involved.
Let us deal, first, with the dangers of age. Recently, Sir Charles Ellis, Scientific Adviser to the Gas Council, investigated this matter. His inquiries showed that not more than 10 per cent. of all fractures occurring during 1958, 1959 and 1960 could be fairly attributed to the pipe being weakened through age. The remaining 90 per cent. were caused by exceptional events which could not be anticipated.
Indeed, the quotation which the hon. Gentleman made from a mid-January Manchester Evening News began with the statement that the
age of gas mains is not a matter of prime importance.
I have with me a copy of the publication Gas Age which I will later hand to the hon. Gentleman. Ten photographs are reproduced showing cast iron gas mains in excellent condition after periods of service ranging from 103 to 128 years. Therefore, while it may have shocked the hon. Gentleman, as he said, to learn as a layman that cast iron pipes could be safe after 100 years, here is the actual evidence brought before us. There is abundant evidence that age alone is not a sound criterion on which to base a policy of renewal.
The hon. Member stated that he gathered that old joints are now condemned. I can find no confirmation of that from gas engineers. What was termed an old joint by the hon. Member is still being installed with absolute confidence in major trunk mains. It is true that flexible joints are now in common use and playing an important part in ensuring a safe distribution system. But it would be quite wrong to assume that mains with old type joints are significantly more dangerous and, therefore, due for replacement urgently.
The third major point made by the hon. Member, and supported again by a quotation from the well-informed, but


anonymous official of the North Western Gas Board, referred to the laying of old pipes many years ago without regard to the suitability of the soil surrounding them. I agree that today pipes are laid with great care and attention to infilling, and that frequently these precautions were neglected in the long past. But it would be wrong to think that all old pipes were badly laid or that nothing is done to correct the faults of other days.
Throughout their life, old pipes, for many reasons, are exposed for inspection, and whenever soil defects are observed they are remedied. Where deficiencies are observed it is not uncommon for the work to be extended beyond the original length fortuitiously exposed. Soil deficiencies are being remedied, but I would not deny that weak spots still remain to be discovered and corrected. All gas boards are vigilant in seeking out weaknesses and the situation will improve steadily. If I have convinced the hon. Member that his fears about age and joints are unjustified, I should not imagine that he would advance soil weakness as a factor demanding this widespread and costly renewal of old pipes.
I hope that some of the worries of the hon. Member have been reduced if not removed. But while I have advanced arguments to show that widespread renewals are not required, that is not to say that a programme of reasoned renewal is not a permanent part of the policy of all gas boards. In England. Scotland and Wales the boards provide heat service for 13 million consumers through nearly 100,000 miles of mains. The industry is alert to its responsibilities. But transport and distribution for such

distances in varying conditions means that an element of risk is ever present. I suggest that 0·3 deaths per annum for every 1,000 miles of main demonstrates that we are not condoning tragedies that should be avoided. Of course there is need for vigilance and no room for complacency.
In the North-West there are 13,000 miles of main at risk every day. Sixteen teams of three men using 16 special vehicles loaded with drilling equipment and elaborate gas detectors ply around their beats, giving special attention to areas of subsidence. They check the mains, drilling holes every 10 feet and lowering the gas detector to check leakages. Soil conditions are also checked by the drill holes. Since 6th April, 1958, over 3,300 miles of mains and 468,000 service mains have been surveyed in this way.
It is from actual conditions revealed by these surveys, plus all the information gained from the condition of pipes exposed for whatever purpose, that the plan and programme of replacement is drawn up. In this way last year 26 miles of pipe were "taken out of risk" in the North-West area alone. This work never ceases. Nothing and nobody is allowed to hinder or hamper it. The Board is conscious that there is much to do. The best brains are applied to the problem. Finance is generously provided, and I give the hon. Gentleman and the House the sincere assurance that neither vigour nor vigilance will be lacking in the drive to obtain results and to reduce pain and anxiety.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.